No Man Is So Blind As Is He Who Refuses To See

     I’m in a kind of “comedown” mood this morning. No, I didn’t get wasted yesterday; it’s a purely psychological phenomenon. You see, yesterday was “Talk Like A Pirate Day,” one of my favorite days of the year. Drives the C.S.O. nuts, but she knows it’s only one day a year. Happily, the many telemarketers desperate to sell me an extended warranty on my cars or security services for my home don’t know that. I’m sure yesterday has winnowed my phone number out of many of their Rolodexes. (Rolodices?)

     Add to that that there are still people unacquainted with the concept of zero. Some of them posture as economists and public policy analysts:

     Leftists are arguing that a $15 minimum wage is far too low; instead, many are calling for a $26 minimum wage.

     As originally noted by Foundation for Economic Education correspondent Brad Polumbo, online debate about the policy started with an August article from the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research. Economist Dean Baker argued in the piece that the minimum wage ought to keep pace with overall economic productivity.

     Having the minimum wage track productivity growth is not a crazy idea. The national minimum wage did in fact keep pace with productivity growth for the first 30 years after a national minimum wage first came into existence in 1938…

Think of what the country would look like if the lowest paying jobs, think of dishwashers or custodians, paid $26 an hour. That would mean someone who worked a 2000 hour year would have an annual income of $52,000. This income would put a single mother with two kids at well over twice the poverty level.

And, this is just for starting wages. Presumably workers would see their pay increase above the minimum as they stayed at their job for a number of years and ideally were promoted to better paying positions. If we assume that after 10 or 15 years their pay had risen by 20 percent, then these workers at the bottom of the pay ladder would be getting more than $60,000 a year.

     Baker acknowledges that the policy would cause mass unemployment if implemented in the present economic order; however, he recommended fundamentally restructuring the economy such that wealthy Americans earn less income.

     Glory be to God! There is no limit to the rapacity of the Left. My original reaction was YGBFKM. (Expand it yourself. Yes, the fourth word is profane.) But then I found myself recalling another hard-left “analyst,” a certain Teresa Ghilarducci:

     Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

     Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

     The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration….

     The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”…

     All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

     I have no doubt that Miss Ghilarducci and Mr. Baker would cross-endorse one another’s policies. It’s powerful evidence for the contention that they hate people. Really! What would the consequences be for blue collar workers and retail sector workers, whose jobs are already threatened by the advance of automation, expert systems, and applied artificial intelligence? What prospects for retirement would they have?

     But as the late Konrad Adenauer once said, the good Lord put limits on Man’s wisdom but none on his stupidity. The Left has a single aim, expressible in two and only two words: Control everything. Control who may and may not work, who may and may not spend or save and how much, who may and may not travel and to where and for how long, and so forth. That such control invariably reduces the whole of society to poverty doesn’t seem faze them. “This time,” they say, “we’ll do it right.”

     It’s not just here. Hearken to what’s just been put in process in our neighbor to the North:

     Surprised? Why? Canada has moved faster Leftward than has the U.S. Not that our Left hasn’t voiced similar proposals and “let’s edge up to it” notions here. Were you aware that various “policy analysts” have proposed the complete elimination of cash? It only started with the elimination of the higher denomination bills. Quite recently, “Republican” economist Ken Rogoff suggested that we eliminate the rest of our physical currency and go “pure digital.” Think about it.

     The COVID-19-propelled refusal of many retailers to accept cash and the drive for “contactless payment” in all circumstances should have given any thinking American pause. Thinking Americans are our target audience here at Liberty’s Torch. I hope the citations above, added to the cash-aversion that flowed from the pandemic, are sufficient to make my point. My arm is already weary from flogging this horse.

Rationing Liquor – Who Will That Affect

From the list of brands affected, it looks like women and the men that are trying to impress them, Black people, and Rednecks with taste (the Rye).

Frankly, any man who spends as much as Dom Perignon costs (it can run over $200 a bottle!), is either trying to score with a woman who is WAY out of his league, or an idiot – or both.

Guys, you’re in the catbird seat right now. About 1/3 of the competition is unemployed. Another 1/3 is either married or otherwise unavailable, gay/bi/whatever, or still living with Mom.

If you don’t have women throwing themselves at you 24/7, get your ass to a gym and pare down that lockdown spare tire, invest in some decent clothing, and lay off the herb. Even minimal effort should leave you with more choices than you can shake your man-stick at.

Don’t waste your money on overpriced booze.

The Dr. Stalin Icarus-Frankenstein approach.

Changes to key parts of the mRNA code in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may be causal in changing the innate immune response via toll-like receptors. Toll-like receptors are important components in defence against infection and downstream effects may also include inhibition of CD8 T cell response. CD8 is a vital part of the immune system’s ability to eradicate infection and cancer. Those changes may be reflected in recent reactivated Varicella Zoster infections [chicken pox] although specific mechanisms are unclear at the moment. Anecdotal reports of significant uptick in cancer presenting to medical consultants may be consistent with aberrant toll-like receptor and dendritic cell changes leading to an inhibition of the anti-cancer CD8 effector response. Further data are required but the prospect of an altered CD8 response to infection and cancer is very concerning and should prompt urgent investigation.[1]

As the familiar quip goes, “What could go wrong?” The ancestors whisper from long ago.

Notes.
[1] “Stabilising the Code.” By Dr. Mike Williams, UKColumn, 9/12/21 (emphasis added).

Premises

     It has been said – I know this for an incontrovertible fact, as I’m the one who said it – that an argument founded on a false premise, no matter how perfectly and seamlessly logical, is worthless. This applies to arguments about any and every subject under the Sun. If your premises are wrong, your argument is trash.

     There’s more than one way for one’s premises to be wrong. They could be incomplete: lacking in some tenet required for the issue at hand. This is often the case in arguments about theological subjects.

     I have a great admiration for mathematician-philosopher Raymond Smullyan. He’s written at length about many philosophical subjects, and his cogitations are frequently illuminating, always entertaining at the very least. But the greatest of logicians – and Smullyan is surely among them – will go wrong if his premises are false or incomplete. I think this is the case in the arguments about the existence and nature of God that Smullyan puts forth in his book Who Knows: A Study of Religious Consciousness.

     Rather than proceed at once to the place where Smullyan and I part company, allow me a few words of preface. Smullyan’s thought is valuable, first in that he’s willing to entertain ultimate questions: Is there a God? Is there a devil? Is there a hell? Why does “natural religion” differ from codified religion, in every instance? Second, he approaches them as a logician, moreover a logician of great power and refinement who knows good reasoning from bad. There is much to be learned from Who Knows. However, one of the things the reader should learn is how vital it is not to be confined by premises drawn from, and solely relevant to, the temporal realm.

     Consider the following snippet:

     …suppose there really is a God who influences some people to believe in Him by some means we do not understand. Then I would hardly regard the belief of those so influenced as a superstition—even though they had no objective evidence for the belief.

     For me, the highlighted word goes to the central problem of Smullyan’s approach: He disdains to consider private experiences as evidence. But why should private experiences be dismissed as “not evidence?” Granted that they cannot be used as objective evidence. Granted that one who seeks to persuade others cannot rely on them. But to those who have had them – yes, I’m one such – they are real. And they can be remarkably persuasive.

     Later on, we have this:

     On the negative side, I certainly regard the fact that God does not communicate with us in a generally recognizable fashion, plus the sufferings and evils of the world, as very strong evidence against a God—certainly an all-powerful and all-good one, as many define God to be.

     Smullyan has just dismissed the conscience, “the still small voice” inside each of us that counsels him away from evil, as a channel of communication that God might employ. Why? Because he can’t hear what my conscience says to me? That’s hardly a substantial objection.

     Now comes the capper, upon encountering which I concluded that Smullyan had gone badly wrong and could no longer find his way:

     Thus, on the one hand, the remarkable design of the world suggests a planner, but the imperfection of the world virtually rules out a perfect planner.

     But what is perfection? To say that something is perfect is to say that it is finished: that is, that no further changes remain to be made to it. As another great and underappreciated philosopher has said, perfection is finality. The perfect thing is a thing whose creation is complete.

     Contrast this with the notion, which Smullyan must hold at some level, that perfection involves the absence of want, or pain, or evil. Such a world cannot exist under the veil of Time. Time, married to any set of physical laws, must inevitably produce both conditions we would find desirable and conditions we would find undesirable…some of them outright lethal. Our reality is such: one in which time, physical laws, and their working-out will sometimes benefit us and sometimes harm us. Add to this the nature of human consciousness, in which each of us makes his choices alone. As we are not a race of angels – unfallen angels, at that – human desire is guaranteed to produce strife and evil, for not all accept the moral laws built into our temporal nature.

***

     In a way, Smullyan has reprised the problem of free will. If God is omniscient, how can we have free will? After all, He knows what we’ll do in every nexus of decision we face. That implies a predetermination of the choices of every creature, Man included. Free will, under those assumptions, must be an illusion.

     But Smullyan has omitted the premise that makes all of theism acceptable. I wrote about it in Shadow of a Sword:

     “I never really got that part,” Christine said.
     Ray nodded. “Understandably so. It seems paradoxical. I don’t really think we’re expected to ‘get’ it. Just accept it on the evidence.”
     The room had grown dim. It had gotten quite late, but neither Ray nor Christine was in any hurry to conclude their chat.
     “What makes it hard for most people,” Ray said, “is that we tend to think of God as just a very powerful temporal entity, like some sort of super-magician. But He’s not. He created time. He looks down on it from above, the way you or I would read a map. He knows the path we follow because He knows all the paths we might follow, and what might flow from every one of them.” He sat back and reflected for a moment. “So our time-dependent language about ‘choosing’ and ‘knowing’ gets us into trouble when we try to apply it to God.”

     If God stands outside time, all else, including free will, maladies, disasters, and human evil, becomes possible without disturbing in the least the conception of a benevolent, loving God and free will for every member of Mankind. Indeed, no conception of a benevolent God would be consistent without that premise.

***

     It is a classical error, the sort that traps the logician inescapably, to apply temporal reasoning and constraints to God. There is absolutely no justification for it…yet philosophers have made the very same mistake for many centuries. Thereby hangs a tale of legions of intelligent and well-meaning men who fancied themselves qualified to reason about God – His existence, His characteristics, and His Plan – and have found themselves caught in thickets of logical impossibility to which their limited viewpoints, especially their inadequate premises, doomed them from the very start.

     I could go on, but I’ll spare you. The watchword, as it so often is, is humility: to accept that however powerful our minds, our knowledge is both conditional and incomplete. With humility, we can learn; without it, we are bound by our own preconceptions. In no domain is humility more important than in our approach to that which our eyes cannot see: God the Creator, who stands above us all, and whose Plan no human conception can encompass.

     Food for thought.

Fences

     Why does anyone, anywhere and at any time, erect a fence?

     I have one around my backyard. It’s to keep my dogs in: that is, to lessen my fear that my dogs will run away, possibly to their deaths.

     When the patricians of other places erect fences, it’s usually to keep other people out: that is, to lessen their fear that other people will invade their privacy, possibly with ill intent.

     The village of Bedford, in Westchester County, New York, is laced with stone walls that demarcate the properties of wealthy individuals. For many years, those walls were almost all no more than three feet high: not serious obstacles to ingress, merely attractive property boundaries. In recent years, some residents have built higher walls than that: four to six feet. That caused some displeasure among older Bedfordites, who saw the walls as more decorative than functional. Among other things, the equestrians of the village could jump the older, low walls, which contributed to a sense of community among the “horsey set.” Walls that were high enough to present a substantial barrier were seen as a rebuff of that community. That did not deter the residents who erected the higher, jump-proof walls; they were more concerned with privacy and security than community.

     Fences and walls are intended to separate one area from another. In the usual case, they express either a preference for privacy or a fear of what lies outside them.

     What do these fences express?

     The rationale given for them is specious. Virtually no harm came to the Capitol, and none to any Congressman, because of the January 6 protest against the blatantly stolen elections. No one expects that the demonstrators who will congregate there today have anything in mind other than voicing their displeasure with the Usurper Regime. But the officials who “work” in that building are fearful all the same. They’re aware of the high – and still growing – national dissatisfaction with them, whether Democrat or Republican.

     Their fears may run well above the actual hazard to them, but that’s nothing new.

     “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson said it, and it is so. But what is the true “correlation of fears” today in these United States? Who currently holds the preponderance? Which way is it trending? Can anyone answer with confidence?

     I can’t. Yet it is plain that there’s fear in both camps. We the People have been subjected to a year and a half campaign to instill fear in us: fear of a virus. It was a pathetic thing to see, for the virus is no more dangerous than ordinary influenza. Americans are slowly but inexorably coming to realize that they’ve been hoodwinked: first by the Trump-averse legions of the Deep State; more recently by the Usurpers who stole the 2020 elections and are frantically maneuvering to cement themselves immovably into power. They — we — are shedding our inculcated fear of this phantasm.

     But another fear is rising: the Usurpers’ and the Deep State’s fear of what we might be moved to do. For a man who discovers that he’s been had will feel anger: some at himself, for having fallen for the con; more at those who hornswoggled him. If he can exact retribution from his defrauders, he will. Our defrauders know their position is shaky. They’re seeing the early-to-intermediate signs of a popular rising, and they know they’re unprepared to meet it.

     So they’ve erected a fence around their place of business.

     I don’t expect the demonstrators to attempt to breach that fence. But that won’t matter quite as much as their numbers and the palpability of their anger. The men inside that fence had better pay close attention. The confidence of their early two or three months has been eroding. Whether elected, appointed, or civil service, they know they are not perfectly secure in their seats.

     Ours is a time of grave portents. The events of the next few days, as public anger toward the Usurper Regime and its many unConstitutional and unAmerican actions swells, will speak loudly. Keep an ear cocked. There may yet be a shot heard ‘round the world.

Is That A Clarion Call I Hear?

     Well, maybe:

     People are waking up to the monumental con that’s been played on us:

     Those are basic facts – from the government horse’s mouth, at that. But don’t you dare try to dispute the importance of the “vaccine,” because the Left’s media minions will shortly know all about you:

     The lady in that opening video just might have a lot of brethren who are ready to act. I hope and pray it’s so, because we’re at the brink of a real lockdown.

     Have a nice day.

You Have Been Told

     You have been told that you, Mr. Unvaccinated American, are by your stubbornness endangering your own life and the lives of others, including the already vaccinated. You have been told that your conduct is unpatriotic, in violation of the “social contract.” You have been told that this is a crisis, the moral equivalent of war. You have been told that by refusing the vaccine, you are failing your duty as an American.

     Never mind that the enemy is too small to be seen with the naked eye. Never mind that the vaccinated are contracting the virus at twice the rate of the unvaccinated. Never mind that the vaccines have a higher death rate than the virus. And never mind that you’ve already had and recovered from the disease and are feeling fit as a fiddle. You are a “science denier” for spurning The Jab.

     But soft! What have we here?

     House Democrats rejected a plan this week that would have required immigrants to the United States to take one of three available Chinese coronavirus vaccines despite mandates on American citizens from President Joe Biden’s administration.

     Last week, Biden ordered that the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) develop a rule requiring all private companies with 100 or more employees to mandate the vaccine or be subjected to weekly coronavirus tests.

     Biden also ordered the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to require vaccines for all health care workers who work at facilities receiving federal Medicare or Medicaid funding.

     As Breitbart News reported, Biden has seemingly not imposed any such vaccine requirements on border crossers, illegal aliens, legal immigrants, or Afghan refugees who are arriving in the U.S.

     During a hearing for the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) proposed an amendment that would require the vaccine for foreign nationals in the U.S. who are seeking to adjust their immigration status to remain in the U.S.

     Every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee opposed the vaccine mandate for immigrants while every Republican supported the measure.

     How shall we make sense of this? Are immigrants not capable of contracting or spreading the dreaded Kung Flu? Do they have some sort of superior immunity by virtue of not being American-born? Or is it a mere technicality of their immigrant status that the Usurpers cannot impose on them the mandates they seek to enforce upon the rest of us?

     You know the answer, Gentle Reader. Just as you know why sitting officials disdain to mask as ordered by their patron saint Anthony Fauci. Just as you know why Congress has exempted itself from all such rules. Just as you know why no Usurper spokesdroid has even attempted to answer questions such as the ones above.

     You are being broken to harness. The Jab is a test of your subjugation, nothing more. Take this highly experimental, unproven, arguably dangerous vaccine or be denounced as a hater and a traitor! By imperial ukase, you have been told to surrender your rights over your own body. All this in the name of combatting a disease that only kills two sufferers in a thousand, just like the flu.

     Fifty years ago, Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson wrote about the “Bavarian Fire Drill:”

     “That’s what we call a Bavarian Fire Drill,” Simon explained to Joe. (It was another time; he was driving another Volkswagen. In fact, it was the night of April 23 and they were going to meet Tobias Knight at the UN building.) “It was one official named Winifred who’d been transferred from the Justice Department to a key State Department desk where every bit of evidence passed for evaluation. But the same principles apply everywhere. For instance—we’re half an hour early for the meeting anyhow—I’ll give you an illustration right now.” They were approaching the corner of Forty-third Street and Third Avenue and Simon had observed that the streetlight was changing to red. As he stopped the car, he opened the door and said to Joe, “Follow me.”

     Puzzled, Joe got out as Simon ran to the car behind them, beat on the hood with his hand and shouted “Bavarian Fire Drill! Out!” He made vigorous but ambiguous motions with his hands and ran to the car next back. Joe saw the first subject look dubiously at his companion and then open the door and get out, obediently trailing behind Simon’s urgent and somber figure.

     “Bavarian Fire Drill! Out!” Simon was already shouting at the third car back.

     As Joe trotted along, occasionally adding his own voice to persuade the more dubious drivers, every car gradually emptied and people formed a neat line heading back toward Lexington Avenue. Simon then ducked between two cars and began jogging toward the front of the -line at Third Avenue again, shouting to everybody, “Complete circle! Stay in line!” Obediently, everyone followed in a great circle back to their own cars, reentering from the side opposite to that from which they had left. Simon and Joe climbed back into the VW, the light changed, and they sped ahead.

     “You see?” Simon asked. “Use words they’ve been conditioned to since childhood—’fire drill,’ ‘stay in line,’ like that—and never look back to see if they’re obeying. They’ll follow. Well, that’s the way the Illuminati guaranteed that the Final Solution wouldn’t be interrupted. Winifred, one guy who had been around long enough to have an impressive title, and his scrawl ‘Evaluation: dubious’ on the bottom of each memo . . . and six million died. Hilarious, isn’t it?”

     No other novel of my acquaintance embeds such a serious, nay critical message in so entertainingly farcical a story.

     But you have been told! Why do you continue to resist the New Sacrament? Why do you spurn the well-meant decrees of your social and political superiors? Have you no sense? Have you no shame?

     No, you have not been told to bare your upper left arm so a government functionary can adorn you with a numerical tattoo. Not yet.

     How could I put it more imperatively?


You are being made into sheep.
Sheep are shorn or slaughtered.
Your time for choosing is now.

     You have been told. Now you shall be asked:

     Are you a sheep…or a man?

Oh My!

     I found this over at 90 Miles From Tyranny:

     The curbs in Augusta, Georgia must be really high. Do you suppose the city council should be chided for tolerating such a hazard to the public?

Under Way As We Speak…

     …is a brand new F&SF convention, specifically oriented toward writers and readers in the Right:

     BasedCon survived a July deplatforming attempt. Currently underway in beautiful Norton Shores, Michigan, BasedCon has sold out and turned a profit in its debut outing. Celebrate this gathering for based authors and fans of science fiction and fantasy by topping off your library at a huge sale of based science fiction and fantasy books. Every one of well over a hundred books in the sale is $0.99 or free right now. The offerings include works by John C. Wright, Fenton Wood, Jon del Arroz, Tom Kratman, Mark Wandrey, Larry Correia, Francis Porretto, Mike Massa, David Weber, C.J. Carella, Brian Niemeier, Alexander Hellene, Jon Mollison, Hans G. Schantz, and many, many more. This is a killer deal, and you’re supporting authors who don’t hate you. Go check out the sale now!

     A couple of those writers are fairly decent. I’m sure you’re already familiar with Tom Kratman and John Ringo. Among the others, I particularly like Jon Mollison and Hans G. Schantz. It’s worth checking out a few of the others. But this guy? I don’t know about him. Sounds to me like a real hack. Probably just trying to pay off his bar bill.

     All the same, please give the sale a look. Books for less than a dollar! Some of them free! How can you go wrong?

The Mind-Bogglings Continue

     I have learned an important lesson:

Never imagine that it can’t get worse.

     As a corollary, never imagine that it can’t get more absurd. There’s no limit apparent to the clownishness of American politicians. They’re beginning to make their colleagues in Italy and France look like sober-minded statesmen. Consider this bit of nonsense, for example.

     Democrats want to include 8 million green cards in their monstrous $3.5 trillion package. They need [Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth] MacDonough’s approval. Here is where it gets a little complicated.

     Senate Democrats need MacDonough’s approval to pull off what is referred to as the “reconciliation process,” a procedure that was added to the Senate’s rules in the early 1970s. The roughly 45-year-old process allows some types of budget bills to pass through the upper chamber with just a simple majority. It allows the bypassing of filibusters by opponents.

     Ultimately, MacDonough, whose job it is to protect the rights of both parties, will decided what is and is not acceptable with regard to the procedures.

     Democrat senators are obviously gung-ho about handing over 8 million green cards to illegal immigrants who have crossed our southern border, as it almost guarantees 8 million new Democrat voters.

     Green cards for illegal aliens proposed as a budget measure, eh? Yes, it’s absurd, but absurdities go with Leftist policy proposals just as reliably as violin solos and thunderous grand-piano chords go with horror movies.

     As I noted in a comment to that piece:

     Among the things that come to mind in this connection, my uppermost is that the major media could play a pivotal role in this, by their decision about whether to cover the story. Many people who routinely support the Democrats would turn against them were they to learn about this…but Americans who rely on the major media are at the mercy of their editorial staffs, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Democrat Party.

     While I can’t prove it with hard evidence, I’m of the opinion that a great part of the political division in these United States arises from Americans’ decisions about which media outlets to trust, and on which issues. The Left’s dominance of the editorial boards of the mainstream media remains an important asset for the reason I cited above. Information those outlets omit is information those who depend upon those outlets will not receive.

     Which brings me to our top story this morning:

     A Detroit News station’s Facebook query about COVID-19 got an unexpected response when users swamped their comment section with stories that directly contradicted their desired narrative.

     “After the vaccines were available to everyone, did you lose an unvaccinated loved one to COVID-19?” WXYZ-TV inquired in the Sept. 10 post. “If you’re willing to share your family’s story, please DM us your contact information. We may reach out for a story we’re working on.”

     After WXYZ-TV posted its appeal for stories about unvaccinated loved ones dying of COVID, something remarkable happened.

     Thousands of Facebook users shared stories describing alarming vaccine side effects, or posted about fully vaxed loved ones dying of the coronavirus. The viral post appears to have become a popular forum for victims of the vaccines to share their stories.

     Please read it all, especially if you or your loved ones are undecided about The Jab. This is part of the accumulating evidence that the “vaccines” – which don’t really immunize against COVID-19, it seems – are at least as dangerous as the virus itself. This has special relevance to the young and healthy, who are in effectively zero danger from the Chinese Lung Rot. But such stories have received no welcome from the organs of the major media.

     The Usurper Regime is demonstrably frantic to get the “vaccines” into as many Americans as possible: preferably all of us. Its absurd claims that the vaccinated are endangered by the unvaccinated is the best possible evidence that their focus is on imposing the “vaccines” on us, not on somehow ending the pandemic. The unConstitutional attempt to mandate their imposition on the employees of all but smallest companies is proof of the Usurpers’ desperation. Be aware that the Usurpers are now talking openly about abridging another Constitutional right – the right to travel freely, recognized and defended by the Supreme Court long ago – to put additional pressure on We the Unvaxxed to bare arms.

     If you’ve been wondering why, you’re not alone. But rather than pursue that line of thought just now, have another bit of news that could upset a few apple carts:

     House Democrats this week are moving forward with their long-awaited plan to raise taxes to help pay for their next big spending package. With more than 40 separate tax increases, collectively worth $2 trillion, it would be the largest package of tax increases in decades — and a test of Democrats’ willingness to raise rates.

     Lawmakers want the money to fund plans to greatly boost government benefits, from expanding access to pre-K programs to beefing up Medicare — though Democrats remain at odds over the plan’s total size, with Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia balking at designs to spend $3.5 trillion.

     Forty new taxes? Even if what’s new is just an increase in the rate, this is not news the American public, already reeling from sharp increases in the cost of living due to Usurper Regime policies, would hear gladly. But will they hear it? Will the major media include those taxes and tax increases in their coverage – and if they do, will the mention of them be prominent or at the bottom of page A37, just beneath the obituaries?

     It’s never been more important to the future of the Republic that we broaden our selections of information outlets. Don’t hew exclusively to the ones that leave your preconceptions and preferences unchallenged. There’s more going on than you’re being told. Some of it is what you really need to know.

From The “No, Really?” Dept.

     There are days I marvel at the obdurate ignorance of self-nominated “scientists.” As I was one, once, I think I can say this with authority: if it isn’t in his wheelhouse, the typical scientist will dismiss it as irrelevant at best, absurd at worst.

     Mankind has developed a great variety of approaches to the acquisition of useful knowledge. Some of those approaches are religious in nature. That is: they proceed from a theology: a creed that incorporates a Supreme Being, a supernatural realm, and a connection between our temporal reality and that higher one. Now, any honest theist will allow that the theology he subscribes to is unverifiable (i.e., unprovable). However, if it is sound, his theology will also be unfalsifiable: incapable of being disproved. A falsifiable system of belief will be subjected to tests of its propositions that human minds can perform. That directly contradicts the nature of a theology.

     More than three thousand years have passed since Moses presented the Decalogue, a.k.a. the Ten Commandments, to the wandering Hebrews. Billions of people have made those commandments the central moral-ethical tenets of their lives. While their lives have not been “perfect” in any sense, those who were faithful to the dictates of the Decalogue (or the Noachide Commandments which preceded them) succeeded in forming coherent, enduring societies capable of progress. While it cannot be proved that adherence to the Decalogue is a necessary condition for forming such a society, history records no examples of successful societies that have lacked them.

     An inquiring mind would note that pattern and say, “Hmm! There might be something to this.”

     In the Christian formulation, the Decalogue is seen as a set of requirements derived from even higher and more imperative principles:

     But the Pharisees hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together: And one of them, a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him: Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?
     Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. [Matthew 22:34-40]

     Earlier in His ministry, the Redeemer put it like this:

     All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets. [Matthew 7:12]

     Most of us know this Golden Rule in its more concise version: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” C. S. Lewis has called it the Law of General Benevolence: to wish all others well, for we would surely prefer that all others wish us well, and so the Golden Rule applies.

     Not too difficult, eh what? Certainly within the intellectual reach of the “scientific mind.” Yet the habit of prominent contemporary scientists has been to dismiss religious precepts. While there are surely scientists who appreciate those precepts, they are out-shouted by cretins such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their fellow-travelers. It’s arrogant, self-glorifying atheists such as these who get the media attention.

     A citation from Dawkins should give you the flavor:

     A few months earlier, in front of an audience of graduate students from around the world, Dawkins took on a famous geneticist and a renowned neurosurgeon on the question of whether God was real. The geneticist and the neurosurgeon advanced their best theistic arguments: Human consciousness is too remarkable to have evolved; our moral sense defies the selfish imperatives of nature; the laws of science themselves display an order divine; the existence of God can never be disproved by purely empirical means.

     Dawkins rejected all these claims, but the last one – that science could never disprove God – provoked him to sarcasm. “There’s an infinite number of things that we can’t disprove,” he said. “You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it’s wrong to say therefore we don’t need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don’t need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.”

     Mind you, no one has demanded that Dawkins, or anyone else, present a conclusive disproof of the existence of God. Rather than confront that unpleasant little fact, Dawkins resorts to ridicule and, later in the same article, defamation:

     Dawkins looks forward to the day when the first US politician is honest about being an atheist. “Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists,” he says. “Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn’t add up. Either they’re stupid, or they’re lying. And have they got a motive for lying? Of course they’ve got a motive! Everybody knows that an atheist can’t get elected.”

     Could it be any clearer that Dawkins’s entire argument is circular? That its function in his consciousness is to reinforce his conviction of his personal intellectual superiority? Yet this is the premier anti-theist of the day.

***

     If you’re wondering why this subject is at top of my stack today, it’s this article at that selfsame Wired magazine:

     Science and religion have often been at odds. But if we remove the theology—views about the nature of God, the creation of the universe, and the like—from the day-to-day practice of religious faith, the animosity in the debate evaporates. What we’re left with is a series of rituals, customs, and sentiments that are themselves the results of experiments of sorts. Over thousands of years, these experiments, carried out in the messy thick of life as opposed to sterile labs, have led to the design of what we might call spiritual technologies—tools and processes meant to sooth, move, convince, or otherwise tweak the mind. And studying these technologies has revealed that certain parts of religious practices, even when removed from a spiritual context, are able to influence people’s minds in the measurable ways psychologists often seek.

     (Applause to Misanthropic Humanitarian for the reference.)

     It’s worth reading in its entirety, though my reaction was a rather amused “No, really? What an incredible surprise!”

     You don’t have to seek far into the past to find great minds – among the greatest that have ever existed – that were deeply religious: devout Christians, devout Jews, devout Buddhists, Taoists, Confucians, and so forth. If the Dawkinsites, as well as being numb to the practical benefits of a wholesome religion, are willing to dismiss Sir Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Antoine Lavoisier, and Albert Einstein as unintelligent, I’d say nothing more need be said about them.

     The bottom line “should” be “obvious:” Beware of anyone who purports to judge the intelligence or honesty of others on the grounds of a difference in unverifiable, unfalsifiable beliefs. Such persons habitually set themselves above others. They need to believe themselves morally and intellectually superior to others. It’s a conclusive symptom of an inherently inadequate identity, the sort that could crumble upon being confronted with a single indisputable fact adverse to their creed. It’s no coincidence that the preponderance of militant atheists of the Dawkins stripe are on the political Left…which says a lot about both the militant atheists of the world and the political Left, doesn’t it?

What Belief Can Teach Science

I found this on Wired. Perhaps not surprisingly, those Tech Nerds are flabbergasted at the idea that religions’ practices have practical application for modern people.

As a Catholic, I come from a long heritage of scientists with strong religious convictions – Pascal, Descartes, Copernicus, Lemaitre, Mendel, Mercalli, Lavoisier, Doppler, to just name a few. Check out this list, and this one, and this book by a Jesuit brother that worked in the Vatican astronomy facilities.

When I taught, I found that students were often surprised that I regularly went to church. Particularly for those students coming from “Bible-based churches”, that viewpoint was contrary to the teaching of their pastors, many of whom were actively hostile to science, and certain that the disdain was returned. They had been informed that, generally, scientists were atheists.

I plan to get the book in the near future, once my life settles down. It’s available at my local library in Cleveland, so that might be an option, too.

They Want to ‘Pretty Over’ the Wounds

The memorials – flowing water, ‘pretty speeches’ (well, if you don’t consider the politicized speech of the former president slamming the NLD (Non-Leftist Dissidents) as Domestic Terrorists), and and fervent undercurrent of “Let’s Forget”.

That’s the Democratic Legacy of 9/11. It was Terribly Inconvenient of the Taliban not to cooperate in a quick and “victorious” end to the Official War on Terror, and make those inconvenient videos, pictures, and memes clearly showing that, no, the Democrats were the cause of Yet Another World-Class Failure (YAW-CF).

I keep hearing about ‘Closure’. Closure is what happens when a wound heals – but, it generally leaves a visible scar. Scars aren’t pretty – but, they are an inevitable part of life. I’ve collected scars from accidents, surgeries, and all of the other nicks and dings of living a full life. I’ve also seen my share of lumps, lines, and creaky joints – the result of a life fully lived.

The thing is, we aren’t meant to wander through live as an observer. We are meant to participate, and, in the process, pick up some evidence – visible and invisible – that we LIVED. And, hopefully, learned from that experience.

We are disrespecting the memory of all those who died through a cowardly, vile act, should we relegate what 9/11 meant to this country to vapid speeches papering over what is still a raw wound.

We SHOULD be able to straightforwardly express our outrage – not merely at the Losers who aimed the planes at a civilian population, but also at the MANY politicians and their Elite Controllers who tried to bury the inconvenient truths of 9/11. Jayna Davis did an amazing job investigating the Oklahoma City bombing, and made some inconvenient discoveries that have light to shed on the events that preceded 9/11, including the FBI culture that, even then, was willing to sweep connections to the Elite under the rug. I recommend buying a copy of her book before it gets disappeared.

Buy provisions, plan a garden, prep for a long winter, and hunker down for now. DON’T go to DC to protest – TPTB are orchestrating yet another demonstration of why a Police State is SO needed. Don’t give them the fodder. Instead, give to the support of those STILL imprisoned from 1/6 – here is one such site.

Here is one for the lawyers trying to get accountability for Ashli Babbitt (they are representing the surviving family members). If you have knowledge of any reputable donation site, please put it in the comments.

On a lighter note, the Deplorables of Twitter (DoT) savage one of The Meathead’s more ignorant rants. It’s important not to descend into despair.

Only progressives.

The hero of the article is a young academic super-star lefty named Kathryn Paige Harden who, the New Yorker says, is almost single-handedly fighting a two-front war: “on her left are those who assume that genes are irrelevant, on her right those who insist that they’re everything.” No one — and I mean no one — thinks genes are “everything,” but that is the pose lefties strike. They believe only committed progressives can truly understand the policy implications of genetics.[1]

I think every progressive, i.e., disingenuous leftist who’s 100% indifferent to the preservation of liberty, who wants to advance any “progressive” idea needs to run it by a committee composed of Bronx Tina, Ron Paul, Lara Logan, Philip Giraldi, Ann Coulter, Cynthia McKinney, any Army E-7 drill sergeant whose last name begins with a “K,” Randy Weaver, and Aaron Babbitt. This would be the 21st-c. equivalent of flapping the scientists of Laputa with inflated bladders in Swift’s masterpiece, Gulliver’s Travels.

As it is, absolute flapdoodle goes right to the moral certainty glands of the nation’s decisionmakers and shills propgandists journalists like crack cocaine lights up the brain receptors of 48-year-old, overweight, tattooed, lesbian feminists.

Witness the results.

Notes
[1] “Taking the Fun Out of Being ‘Progressive.’” By Jared Taylor, The Unz Review, 9/8/21.

Parodies Sometimes Improve On The Original

     Consider these two songs, the first the original by R.E.M.:

     Now, the parody, by the immortal Al Yankovic:

     Frankly, I prefer the parody. (I must also admit that I do like Spam®. Dad was a Navy man, and the stuff was a staple of his diet in his World War II years.)

Post 20th Year Ceremonies – What Remains of the Republic?

It was said to have been uttered by Ben Franklin. It may have been, he was apparently quick with pithy sayings (not always his own).

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787,  Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention,  a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.”  Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”

Joe Martin has a lengthy post – I’d recommend reading it, in full.

We appear to be nearing that time, when it’s necessary to flip the switch from Nice to Not-Nice.

TPTB are drawing the lines. Not merely in the USA, but worldwide.

The Left is also concerned about the Downfall of Civilization – however, they have decidedly different expectations of the course it will take.

Charting a pathway out of our current hysterical response to a relatively mild infection (for most) will take some time. It will take even longer, should we continue to be blocked in ferreting out the reality. Alex Berenson has several small books that attempt to find out the truth from the load of Convenient B$ that is coming from the Left.

I know it’s hard to settle your mind down to reading anything but fluff lately – God knows that I’ve been re-reading old mysteries over the last year. It’s called Escape Literature for a reason. But this is a book that bears reading, and may give you both hope, and a clearer mind for the Re-Building Efforts to come.

Add this report to the stack – those of you who are more philosophic of mind may find it worthwhile.

What the hell, ya’ gotta do something while waiting for the tumbrels to arrive.

All of the above recommended book were from What Would the Founders Think blog.

Lastly, a long-ago case of multigenerational property transfers were negated by the original fraud. Would that the courts would follow THAT precedent.

The Shoulds

     Good morning, Gentle Readers. A number of you have written to ask why I haven’t posted anything about the twentieth anniversary of the greatest atrocity ever visited upon this nation. The short answer is that the date has left me both heartsick and furious: too heartsick to say anything encouraging, and too furious to say anything meaningful about “where we go from here.” As for the long answer…well, suffice it to say that neither of us has the time or patience for that. So I’ll spare you.

     Other commentators have said a great deal about the day today commemorates. Gerard Vanderleun produced a deep remembrance of what he saw that day. Mike Hendrix has rounded up the thoughts of several others and added his own. There’s enough there and elsewhere for your perusal. I have no need to add a great quantity of melancholy or angry verbiage to theirs, especially given how I feel about it all.

     However, there’s a word ringing in my head that simply won’t go away. It’s an old “favorite,” one about which I’ve ranted in the past: should. To be more specific, I’m hearing it embedded in a past-tense phrase: what we should have done. As we’re getting quite a lot of that from other commentators, including the ones cited above, I’ll strive to keep my thoughts brief.

     First, a snippet from a truly excellent thriller:

     “Miss Rains?” It was the General.
     “Yes, sir.”
     “What did you know for certain after the attacks on 9/11?” he asked.
     I hesitated for a moment because I thought I was being tested.
     “I knew for certain on 9/11 that we were at war,” I said. “What did you know for certain on 9/11, sir?”
     “That we had gotten off easy,” he said and hung up.

     [Martin McPhillips, Corpse in Armor]

     Both Mara Rains, the first-person protagonist of the passage above, and her shadowy interlocutor “the General” are correct. Moreover, their conclusions were easily available to anyone who dared to view the atrocity open-eyed. We were at war. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were just early salvoes, the worst our enemy could do to us at that moment. They were not the end of the conflict, but the beginning of its active phase.

     That war began with Muhammad himself. It’s a war between the Christian-Enlightenment West and Islam. It’s now fourteen centuries long and is still going on…and we’re losing.

     We’re losing because we’re unwilling to allow that we’re at war. Instead, our “leaders” prattle about “justice” and exhort us not to think badly of Muslims.

     But war is not justice. War is not the imposition of a judicial procedure upon an accused wrongdoer. War does not send forth detectives to investigate nor policemen to arrest nor judges and juries to try. War is prosecuted with armies. Its aim is to break the will of the enemy: at first, by closing with and destroying its active forces; thereafter, by doing whatever is necessary to eliminate the will of the enemy nation to resist our will.

     We were at war after 9/11…but we did not go to war. Our “leaders” refused to allow that we were at war. They prattled instead about “justice” and “democracy.” In particular, they told us that Islam is “a religion of peace.”

     Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is an ideology of world conquest. It aims at the subjugation of all of Mankind. Stripped of its theological trimmings, it is indistinguishable from Nazism…but wait: didn’t Adolf Hitler want to be seen as a god?

     Islam has always been the open enemy of the West, the United States in particular. It will be our enemy for as long as it persists.

     We cannot impose “justice” on Islam. We cannot “democratize” or “modernize” it. We certainly can’t improve its attitude toward us through immigration or trade. We can only fight it with wholesale slaughter and destruction, just as we did with Nazism and Japanese imperialism.

     Only two commentators took that view, unabashedly and unapologetically, after September 11, 2001. One was Ann Coulter:

     We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.

     The other was this clown. If you don’t recall what he said on that occasion, here’s the meat of it:

     I saw and spoke to many people that day. Gripped with shock from the events, many had nothing to offer but tears. Those who could articulate their feelings were nearly unanimous about them:

     “Kill them all.”

     It was a sentiment I shared with a degree of passion and a wholeness of heart that I’d once reserved for the people and things I loved.

     He meant every word of it. He still means it all today. But do have a nice day.

Watching the 20th Remembrance of 9/11 Victims

Every year, I watch this – either the televised services, or the ceremonies that were held at the schools I taught at.

The Southern schools do this well. Most of the schools have an active JROTC program, and the students take their participation very seriously. School leaders, community members – both present and past serving, the local 1st responders and National Guards , and, most importantly, the students (over the last 5 years, were not even born when the Towers fell), made this an emotionally draining, but very important memorial.

Every year, I find myself crying – for the victims, for our country, and for the speed with which most have managed to forget the lessons of that day.

What were the lessons?

That America was being targeted by Islamic radicals, not for what we had done, but for what we represented.

That the weasels of the Left could barely conceal their impatience to push any knowledge or memory of “this event” far away, and minimized as just a terribly sad but completely understandable expression of justified rage of the oppressed. Good luck with that, Weasels!

I was working, and preparing for our school’s opening (delayed due to some construction issues). We would have started with our first day on Wednesday. That was delayed another week, and in the interim, we lost a 1st grade teacher. Her husband, a helicopter pilot in the service, was several weeks away from retirement. She had moved from VA to take her position, and was forced to quit to return to VA, when her husband’s retirement was rescinded.

My husband and I had 2 children in the military – our son was serving on the Bon Homme Richard, at that time out of port, and our daughter was National Guard, and in college. Danny was smart, and, as soon as he heard of the attack (he worked in an office right near the bridge), he emailed me that he was fine, but would likely be out of contact for at least a few weeks. We trusted that God would keep him safe. He ended up going back and forth over the Pacific, ferrying Marines to Afghanistan, and traveling to spots around the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf.

We didn’t hear from our daughters until late in the day – both were fine. The youngest was with her boyfriend, later her husband, also in the Guard. They spent the next few days with their unit, preparing for what might come. As it happened, her unit wasn’t called up until 2 years later.

I’m watching NBC News. Hoda has an oddly inappropriate carefree smile on her face. She seems detached from the ceremony, and is smiling and laughing as though this was just another day. Savannah Guthrie appears to be more attuned to decorum, with a more serious mien.

Apparently, GW Bush is in Shanksville, PA, the site of the Flight 93 plane’s crash. Kah-mah-la will be joining him. Hope she manages to hold back that jacka$$ laughter for the duration of her appearance.

I remember my mother on December 7. I didn’t understand her feelings about that day, until I experienced 9/11. By that point, she, and my father, had been dead for several years. My kids are old enough to understand, but I doubt that my grandkids have the maturity to realize what a shock it all was – not unlike the shock of Pearl Harbor.

Schools don’t truly teach about these pivotal events. They are so anxious not to appear “Islamophobic”, that they don’t convey the deserved outrage these atrocities deserve. Similarly, students are taught more about Hiroshima, than Pearl Harbor. “Moral equivalence” is the order of the day.

There is no moral equivalence. The people who planned, and perpetrated this are moral midgets, privileged and ethically empty, nasty little thugs. I’m not satisfied by the outcome of the Afghanistan War, nor the lack of accountability that Pakistan has been held to. I’m fine with making wide swathes of “Pock-ee-ston” a parking lot.

Screw ’em.

One newscaster is talking about how kids born after that point don’t even question any security measures – whether TSA checkpoints, no backpack rules, long lines to pass scrutiny in sports venues or other large gatherings, and, now, masking. It is the ‘normal’ they have grown up with. They have learned to accept many restrictions on their freedom for the dubious guarantee of ‘being safe’.

My experience with younger Americans is different. Many of them hear stories from elder family members; many of them have former soldiers, sailors, and Marines in that group. They are often quite thoughtful, although, thanks to the readiness of the Karens and Kyles of their acquaintance, they are reluctant to state their non-PC opinions openly. When they talk in private with me, the truth comes out. They are NOT generally happy with our oppressive government. There is an undercurrent of distrust, disdain, and discontent with America’s ‘leadership’ and other Elites.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this sentiment was the tinder that only needed a flashpoint to ignite.

I may add to this post as the day goes on. If I do, I’ll add it below.

9:42 am – I thought I noticed that lying ba$tard Milley at the Pentagon ceremony. Little weasel should be embarrassed to show his face in public after that FusterCluck in Afghanistan.

Chronicles Of The Collapse

     It is characteristic of collapsing regimes that as they feel their subjects turning against them, possibly preparing to rise, they strive to tighten their grip to the maximum. This is happening in the United States as we speak:

     Policymakers in Washington have proposed requiring banks to report virtually all their customers’ bank account information and activity to the IRS regardless of the customers’ consent.

     While community banks do not endorse such broad IRS access to their customers’ account information, consumers need to be aware of the potential effects of this proposal.

     Mandating new, broad bank account reporting to the IRS would infringe on the privacy of bank customers, push more people away from a banking relationship and overload the IRS with more personal information about American citizens than it can possibly process or keep safe from a data hack.

     Applause to Mike Miles at 90 Miles from Tyranny for the reference.

     Remember, just a few years back, when government economists – and if that doesn’t strike you as a contradiction in terms, it damned well should — were openly proposing the complete elimination of cash? You can count on that idea coming back to their table. Cash is the only truly private transactional medium. The doings of people who buy and sell in cash are known only to themselves. Our omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent federal Leviathan doesn’t want us to have any privacy at all. Privacy makes insurrections and revolutions possible.

     The Usurpers are frightened. They’ve heard the talk; they want to know who’s talking it and how serious he is, and they want to put a stop to it right BLEEP!ing now. Why else would the Justice Department and Homeland Security be forming intimate relationships with the giants of Big Tech? Why else would they be straining to eliminate the privacy of our communication via cell phones? Why else would Biden’s puppeteers have told him to mandate The Jab?

     Do you think there’d be anything the Usurpers couldn’t learn about you, once your financial and medical dealings have been laid bare?

     Once more, with feeling: There is no time. The collapse is in progress. Whether we rise soon or late will determine how bad the destruction will be.

     Take it seriously, Gentle Readers:

  • Deal in cash, exclusively if possible.
  • Know the leanings of those you do business with.
  • Keep a significant portion of your savings – at least 10% – in gold and silver.
  • Fill your pantry with foods that will keep your family alive and healthy for at least a month.
  • Be armed. Be well armed. Before all else, be armed! (With copious thanks to the spirit of Niccolo de Machiavelli.)

     I can’t say it loudly enough. Soon I might not be able to say it at all. So take heed.

Undeniable truths.

We are being denied our right to communicate freely. We are being denied our right to a fair election. We are being denied our right to be heard in court. We are being denied our right to be heard in public.

This does not end well. Let us consider the paths forward.

First, we should agree that the Republican party is dead, along with its affiliated “conservative” institutions in the media and think-tanks. . . .

Where We Go From Here.” By surakblog, 1/7/21.

Load more