GIVE TIL IT HURTS!

Trust: who do ya?

The Empire Of Lies is building a trust-free society for its hapless subjects. Let’s see how that works out for ‘em in the end.

You Can Trust ’Em

Survey after survey shows that trust in American society and institutions is at an all-time low. To paraphrase the poet songwriter Bob Dylan, “who can ya trust, besides yourself?” 

Since trust ensures the stability of society and its myriad of institutions, when it evaporates, what’s left? Chaos, polarization, perhaps violence. When you review all the markers of the loss of trust you get a headache and considerable heartburn. 

Politicians are trusted least, at just above zero percent. Business leaders a bit more and lawyers a tad less. Teachers and professors used to rate high but no longer. Pastors, rabbis, and priests have fallen to new depths. With marriages in disrepair, relationships superficial at best, and even families at war (thanks, Spare “Haz“), what are we going to do? 

Would you trust the FBI, given the bureau’s known duplicity and fabrications? 

Would you trust the IRS, with or without guns, after Lois Lerner and all the tax scams and political audits? 

Would you trust Sloppy Joe with any classified documents, foreign cash earmarked for the “Big Guy,” and all that predatory behavior? 

How about social media after the Twitter files exposed how they worked with the deep state to throttle back conservatives and actively spread disinformation? 

Would you trust any of the medical-health players, the CDC or FDA, let alone Big Pharma, to tell us the truth about anything after COVID and the harmful experimental vaccines and unnecessary lockdowns? How about the godlike master bureaucrat Fauci? 

What about mainstream media? We all know of their inherent structural bias and failure to engage in any form of accurate and fair journalism. That’s why they wear the moniker “fake” so well. 

The woke and eco-terrorists who go on and on about the end of the planet every year surely shouldn’t be trusted. We are still here, after all, and so is the polar ice cap. Al Gore and John Kerry are arch-hypocrites. Do you trust them one bit? 

You should be able to trust the local school system to educate your children, no? Now they won’t even award merit certificates to those who earned them for fear of disappointing those who didn’t. Teachers’ unions are clearly in it for themselves, not the children. No trust working there. 

Nor anyplace else, near as I can determine. Which sad, sorry fact is gonna cost all of us very dearly before it’s all said and done. It’s impossible to Fundamentally Transform™ a high-trust society into a no-trust one without destroying it utterly.


2
1

Lying, or just delusional?

With Pedo Joe, it’s damned near impossible to know for sure.

Joe Biden believes he is honest, and that anyone who disagrees with him is lying, or is ignorant, or has been deceived by liars.

So deeply convinced is Joe Biden of his own honesty that he thinks his very name is synonymous with truth-telling:

“I give you my word as a Biden: I will never stoop to President Trump’s level.”

— Nov. 20, 2019

“I give you my word as a Biden: If I am elected president I will do everything in my power to protect our children from gun violence.”

— March 10, 2020

“I give you my word as a Biden: When I’m president, I will lead with science, listen to the experts and heed their advice, and always tell you the truth.”

— March 18, 2020

When I first noticed him using this “my word as a Biden” phrase during the 2020 campaign, I was puzzled. Has the Biden family been so prominently associated with honesty that when Joe says this, most Americans say, “Well, that settles it”? Of course not. In fact, Biden’s first presidential campaign, in 1988, collapsed in disgrace specifically because of Joe’s dishonesty, when he was caught plagiarizing others — most notably British Labour leader Neil Kinnock — in his speeches.

Joe Biden lies about a lot of things, including his own biography. It is fair to say he is notoriously dishonest, and yet he seems to believe that nobody knows this, and that he enjoys a reputation as a truth-teller.

“My word as a Biden”? It is to laugh. And laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh.

(Via Ed)

2
1

This one’s for EP

For reasons which shall soon become obvious.

Go Inside the New Tesla Semi: Features, Screens, Seats, and More

We visited Frito-Lay to find out what the Semi’s interior looks like, and how it drives and charges.

Expect no surprises, that’s my advice. Because it’s gonna shake out exactly as anybody who’s been following this EV foofaraw already knows it must.

Tesla fans with Ruffled feathers over perpetually delayed products can finally Lay off the brand. After much waiting (only four years late), the electric Tesla Semi’s first customer, PepsiCo, has taken delivery of its first examples of the big rig. The beverage and snack food conglomerate’s Frito-Lay division will take center stage in the company’s Tesla truck rollout plans at its Modesto, California, factory and distribution center, so we visited the upgraded 80-acre zero-emissions facility to experience the Tesla Semi firsthand and talk to its drivers about what it’s like to drive.

Frito-Lay’s 15 new Tesla Semis made their debut at an event celebrating the Modesto factory’s transformation into a zero-emissions pilot project for Pepsi as it aims to achieve zero emissions across its operations by 2040. The revamped facility is massive: 500,000 square feet dedicated to turning potatoes and corn into Lays, Ruffles, Doritos, Cheetos, and Fritos chips, powered by a massive onsite solar facility and local renewable energy projects, both backed by 2.7 MWh of onsite battery storage. Helping the factory distribute its snacks throughout the American west are three electric BYD 8Y yard tractors, six Peterbilt 220EV electric box trucks for local last-mile deliveries, 38 natural-gas powered Volvo VNL trucks for long-distance slogs, and of course, six (and counting) Tesla Semis, used for out-and-back trips across the region.

Making “three times the power of the average diesel semi,” according to a media-trained Tesla rep, the electric Tesla Semi effectively sports a lightly modified Model S Plaid tri-motor powertrain spun around backward. The Model S’s front motor drives the Semi’s rear axle, functioning as the “highway drive unit,” while the Plaid’s dual rear motors are mounted on the Semi’s middle axle. These motors feature a Rivian-like clutch, allowing them to be used for acceleration and to decouple once at speed for improved efficiency. Considering the bestselling semi in the U.S., the Freightliner Cascadia, sports 350 hp in its basic form and that “three times” that figure is 1,050, we’re fairly confident in saying the Semi matches the Model S and Model X Plaid’s 1,020 hp, and possibly its 1,050 lb-ft of torque, as well.

As for its battery—well, logic dictates we should look at the Plaid again. The few PepsiCo Tesla Semi drivers present during our visit said the truck has a 1,000-kWh battery pack, or 1 megawatt-hour (MWh), which equals 10 Plaid battery packs daisy-chained together. That jives with Tesla’s claim of 500 miles of range and company chief Elon Musk’s claim of the Semi using 2 kW per mile traveled. In real-world use, Frito-Lay’s drivers told us the Semi’s routes are much shorter. A typical day for them might have them leaving Modesto in the morning with a load of chips (weighing less than the truck’s 82,000 gross combined vehicle-weight rating) and running an out-and-back loop to places like San Jose or Concord, both about 85 miles away.

Hey, that oughta work out great. After all, over my years of driving big rigs, I can’t really recall hearing of ANY trucker EVER being expected to cover more than 170 miles in a single day. But wait, it gets even better still.

The out-and-backs are crucial because at the moment there are few places to charge an electric Tesla Semi. Frito-Lay installed four Superchargers onsite in dedicated “Tesla Semi” parking stalls, all of which feature a unique squarish plug incompatible with any other Tesla we’re aware of. The chargers are capable of outputting 750 kW, far exceeding the 250-kW peak rates of Tesla’s passenger vehicles and existing Supercharger network. That, says Frito-Lay, is good enough to charge its fleet of Tesla Semis from nearly empty to 70 percent in about a half hour (good for 400 miles), and to 100 percent in about 90 minutes.

Interestingly, the four Tesla chargers are positioned in such a way that the Semis must unhitch their trailers and back in to plug into each one’s charge port, which is located on the driver’s side, just forward of the middle axle.

Ohhhh yeah, the truckers are gonna just LOOOOOVE that. “Extended” range, for certain values of the word “extended,” plus the added hassle of having to drop the trailer every time you need to “gas up” the useless hunk of junk too? I ask you, what’s not to like here?

And believe me, hassle it is: first, scramble underneath to pull the handle on the fifth wheel and unlock the kingpin. Then, sweat yourself into a lather winding down the rusty, stiff, recalcitrant landing gear on the trailer. Which in itself can be quite damned hazardous, actually: several years back, my brother knocked himself near-unconscious when a landing-gear handle kicked back on him and whacked him upside the haid. Ended up having to get stitches, that’s how severely it laid him open.

And yes, the same damned thing has happened to me plenty of times too sans the stitches part of it, along with every other unfortunate soul cursed to the trucking life, guar-on-teed. It’s just one of those things you gotta deal with, y’know?

Yep, sounds like those Frito-Lay/Pepsico boys have themselves a lot to look forward to with these fine, fine machines.

2

Admissions of error

They seem to be going around of late.

The Biden Administration Finally Admits Its Mistake in Canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline

At long last, the Biden administration is admitting what experts have always known: reckless energy policies have disastrous consequences. This time, the Department of Energy quietly released a report highlighting the positive economic benefits of developing the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, an energy project canceled by President Biden in the hours following his inauguration. 

But the DOE’s report is a proverbial day late and a dollar short. The cancelation of the Keystone XL pipeline has already cost the United States thousands of jobs and billions in economic growth while families suffer under the weight of record high energy prices. It’s time for lawmakers to make American energy independence a top priority. 

Released without a formal announcement, the DOE’s report points out that the pipeline would have created between 16,149 and 59,000 jobs and would have had an economic benefit of between $3.4 and 9.6 billion. That’s no small impact. Yet with one stroke of his pen, Biden slashed the project and instead focused his efforts on costly “green energy” goals. As a result of his executive action, 11,000 pipeline workers were promptly laid off and told to “go to work to make solar panels” instead. 

But Biden’s green energy efforts are bound to backfire sooner rather than later. That’s because today, more than 70 percent of the energy produced and consumed in America comes from oil, gas and coal. That’s not likely to substantially change anytime soon. In fact, the International Energy Agency predicts that oil’s share of energy production in the United States will only fall 8 percent in the next two decades, from 31 to 23 percent. And that’s assuming a sustained commitment to green energy policies. The forecast spells bad news for the Biden White House. At his political peril, Biden ignores the lessons of Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush, who both lost elections due to spiked oil prices and accompanying recessions.

Oh, I’m beginning to suspect, strongly, that Old Joe is going to die of Suddenly™ well before the next sham “election” season rolls around. But Joe’s Folly isn’t the only mea culpa to be found out there.

Pro-Vaxx Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Admits Profusely “The Anti-Vaxxers Win”

Mark Twain is often misattributed as saying, “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” The sentiment is definitely Twainesque, but he never said it. Nevertheless, it’s still true and demonstrable time and again in our post-truth society.

As more “normies” have started waking up to the reality that the Covid-19 “vaccines” are ineffective and dangerous, a lot are finding new ways of defending their decisions to get jabbed rather than admitting it was a mistake. Conservative comic Scott Adams, who is most famous for creating the Dilbert comics, is not one of those people. He’s now admitting that “anti-vaxxers won” in regards to their decision.

In fact, he admitted it over and over again.

“All of my fancy analytics got me to a bad place,” he said. “All of your heuristics — ‘don’t trust these guys’ is obvious — totally worked.”

Blindly trusting the US government and its horde of bought and paid-for faux “experts” never does work out too well, not for anybody.

4
3

Expert me no experts

Jeff Goldstein tears Sam Harris and Scott Adams a new one.

If you haven’t yet encountered it, here’s the new orthodoxy on vaccine hesitancy from self-styled public intellectuals Sam Harris and Scott Adams (paraphrased): the science as it unfolded suggested that the vaccine hesitant had no valid rational basis for that hesitancy; while those who promoted mandates were wrong only accidentally, given that they were basing their position on the science as it had been reported to them by those most credentialed to do so.

For instance: Harris argues that had certain pandemic variables been changed, no room for a debate on vaccination programs would have been allowed — and that under those hypothetical circumstances his would-be authoritarianism would have been perfectly justified, while others’ hesitancy would have been rightly demonized, and their cooperation in a mandatory vaccination regime properly and morally commanded by force.

The position Harris and Adams hold is at root that accepting uncritically (or to the extent criticism is deemed valid) the “expert” scientific consensus in a potential doomsday emergency is both required and righteous —making those who do not do so outliers whose arguments hold no persuasive weight; and that because the data refuting a worse case scenario wasn’t immediately available except through limited observational studies and anecdotal evidence, the proper position to take was to act as if the worse case scenario were indeed taking place, and that the “experts” were entirely unbiased and had no incentive other than the reliable interpretation of data to reach particular set of conclusions.

Except that they did have incentives to reach certain conclusion(s). Hospitals most certainly and provably were incentivized to diagnose Covid; to admit people based upon that diagnosis; to treat the virus in a way that was institutionally enforced; to secure a course of treatment using Remdesivir; to ventilate patients; and to reject — and demonize — any care that didn’t pursue this specific course of treatment. So it was not “accidental” that some people saw this early on. Similarly, it was not an accident that some people early on determined that the long history of acquired immunity’s providing protection against a virus wasn’t all of a sudden scientifically untenable simply because Anthony Fauci began insisting it was. That’s not how science works. So when public health agencies and their experts must literally change an established definition to create the conditions for a therapeutic to continue its claim to “vaccine,” one would be entirely negligent to dismiss such linguistic maneuvers as innocuous, or their purveyors as well intentioned. And yet that’s exactly what so many self-styled public intellectuals did.

In this case, both Harris and Adams fell for the Eric Stratton gambit (“You fucked up! You trusted us!”), and they simply cannot accept that anyone without their public plaudits and claims to genius could have rationally rejected the credentialed narrative, save by pure blind luck. If the unwashed, conspiratorially-minded anti-vaxxers somehow got it right this time, the argument goes, they did so not by distrusting this particular science, but rather by adopting a conspiratorially-minded worldview that in random instances may align with reality as it comes to be revealed later on. Whereas those with Big Brains, while they may have gotten this one wrong, did so only because they used the best evidence available to them to reach their initial conclusions. They were wrong only because their process was both correct and unimpeachable!

Not only is this affected argument presumptuous (and not a little elitist ), but worse still, it’s just plain wrong. Plenty of credentialed experts who were being deplatformed and silenced by the government / media / big tech fascist troika sounded the alarm early on about a campaign of mass vaccination: vaccinating into an active pandemic is bound to give those mutated variants that resist the vaccine an evolutionary advantage toward dominance, prolonging the pandemic; that repetitive vaccinations — boosters — could lead to immune exhaustion or even antibody-dependent enhancement; and that within the mRNA program itself, unproven in humans and at best unreliable in laboratory animals, plenty of viable potentialities — many of them negative — needed to be examined, especially given the very early signal of serious adverse reactions to the shots, be they cardiac or neurological. Covid didn’t occur in a vacuum. Historically, our health agencies have established certain benchmarks for vaccine harm that would require a specific product to be halted and removed from the market. In this case, those previous benchmarks were ignored — and those who pointed to them demonized as anti-science.

In short, both Harris and Adams have nestled themselves into the welcoming folds of the Tom Nichols Fallacy: credentialed experts often know the most about a subject in which they are credentialed, therefore those same credentialed experts are likely to be correct in their assessment of anything that falls within the purview of their credentialed field.

As Mitch Hedberg once noted, “every book is a children’s book, if the kid can read.” A comic’s quip, sure, but one filled with a profound insight about the nature of meritocracy. To those who were able to read studies on their own, or even have them filtered through credentialed experts whom they’d come to trust, nothing being revealed today relating to the inefficiency of the Covid vaccines, their potential (current) adverse effects, and their potential future long term effects, is new, surprising, or “accidentally” understood. In fact, those are the people who predicted every step of the way how this pandemic would resolve itself.

Why, thanks, Jeff, I’ll take that as a direct personal compliment. Although seeing where all this was headed early on wasn’t all that difficult a feat to pull off, really. Anybody even halfway cognizant of the true nature of despotic government, as explicitly described by America’s Founding Fathers—its innate tendencies and ambitions; its usual go-to methods in consummating them; its essential ruthlessness, amorality, and arrogance—could have easily foreseen what was coming at us.

Update! OHHHH yeah, I’m sure the intentions behind this terrifying development are completely pure and good.

The US Meat Supply May Soon Be Widely Contaminated With mRNA Proteins From Biotech “Vaccines”
Editor’s Note: The reason we launched an organic freeze dried chicken company last year was anticipation of what you’ll read in the article below. They’re attacking our food supply from multiple fronts. It behooves my readers to use promo code “jdr” whether buying long-term storage chicken or a premium protein bucket. With that said, here’s Mike Adams…

There’s soon going to be another reason to either choose vegetarian food options or get your meat from local, trusted sources: mRNA vaccines are about to be heavily implemented across the meat industry, with cattle, chickens, pigs, goats and other livestock targeted for regular mRNA injections.

As we’ve seen with human beings, mRNA injections can:

  1. Circulate throughout the entire body and end up in blood and organs.
  2. Cause the body to produce toxic proteins which can cause toxic effects.
  3. Clog arteries and end up killing or harming people from strokes or heart attacks.
  4. Alter chromosomes and cause permanent genetic changes to the organism.

Hypodermic needles, it turns out, aren’t the only way these mRNA instructions can be introduced into the human body. They can also be swallowed, or they can enter through skin contact. Merely handling raw meat contaminated with mRNA products is likely the equivalent to being exposed to “shedding” from vaccine recipients. And even though stomach acid likely destroys mRNA sequences, there is absorption that takes place in the mouth, under the tongue, which is why many medications and supplements — including CBD oils and zinc — are often best absorbed under the tongue rather than being swallowed.

Thus, merely introducing mRNA-vaccinated animal meat products into your mouth, if not fully cooked, may expose you to a kind of “food shedding” of mRNA products that can be absorbed into your blood and circulated throughout your body. This can include proteins which are alien to the human body.

Don’t worry, you can trust them. And if you don’t believe it, hey, just ask ’em.

Whether they bought into the hype and hysteria over the “threat” posed by the Coof or not, it ought to be obvious by now to even the meanest intelligence that the Plandemic has pretty much run its course. Yet still, The Power remains absolutely determined to get this dangerous gene-altering chemical introduced into as many circulatory systems as they can possibly manage. At this point, every rational person must ask him/herself: WHY?!?

STRONG HINT: Knowing what we know about them, we can quite safely assume it is NOT because they love us, care deeply about our welfare, and just want us to be happy.

6

Questions, I has a few

So does Mark Jeftovic, who has narrowed his down to just two.

They Promised “Safe And Effective”; We Got “Sudden And Unexpected”

I want everybody reading this to think of two numbers from asking you two questions:

Question #1) How many people do you know who died of COVID?
I first started hearing rumblings of a new Coronavirus emerging out of China in January 2020 (although it looks now like COVID was already circulating throughout the world by mid-2019).

When I got wind of it, I was emailing friends and colleagues to get N95 masks and to stock up on groceries and medications. It looked bad. By February I was probably one of the first people seen around town wearing an N95 mask. In March I started running a spreadsheet using R0, fatality rates and case-doubling times that were coming out of the CDC, the WHO, and shrieking hysterics like Eric Feigl-Ding.

When it was all unfolding, I was initially afraid. My rough model posited that by the end of May we’d have 442,368 cases with as many as 22,118 fatalities and that was just in Toronto. By the end of July, 1.7 million cases and 88,473 fatalities.

I laid out previously what happened and what turned me into a lockdown skeptic: every day I’d plug in the new case and fatality numbers from the city, the province and federal levels and by the end of May I realized that my model was bust. By fall I knew that case numbers were bullshit (it didn’t matter how many people tested positive on a PCR test) and that lockdowns were a bigger problem than the virus.

There weren’t going to be 88K fatalities across the entire country, let alone Toronto (the official fatality count now for all of Canada is 49.5K – and we also now know that most of those, upwards of 90%, were with COVID and not from COVID. Toronto had about 3.7K total fatalities in over two years).

I naively thought this was good news. Surely everybody was looking at the data and surely everybody could see by mid-summer, that even adjusted for seasonality and expecting another wave in the fall, this was nowhere near the THERMONUCLEAR LEVEL EVENT certain prognosticators were promoting.

We all know what happened instead: by fall it had become a full fledged religion and well on its way to mass formation psychosis.

On January 1st, 2022 I surmised that the pandemic was mostly over. During the main run of COVID I did lose about four people within my social circle, none from COVID or even with COVID. That figure doesn’t count another two people I knew about in my area who committed suicide under lockdowns.

So without diminishing the tragedy of any of those 49K Canadians who succumbed with COVID, my number for the first question is zero.

How can anybody be faulted for not knowing what to believe or who to trust?
With the conventional narratives being so ephemeral and one “conspiracy theory” after another being validated (lockdowns, lab leak, vaccine passports…) is it any wonder people are becoming skeptical or outright distrustful of our institutions and media?

Given how many years they’ve been lying to us, about nearly everything under the sun, it’s dismaying that they’re only just now figuring it out.

Read it all…and weep.

(Via Wes Renegade)

2

The law is a ass

So the Houston taqueria shooter has foolishly contacted Houston Homicide, exactly as I hoped and prayed he wouldn’t, rather than heading across the border into Mexico and laying low for awhile as he should’ve done. The case has been referred to a grand jury for further investigation. Legal Eagle Andrew Branca, whose email list I’ve been a subscriber to for a good while now, deep-dives into Texas self-defense law and the facts as we know them from the vid, and comes up with the likely outcome.

SPOILER alert: it isn’t pretty.

Although the shooter initially fled the scene, along with all the other customers, he has now reportedly retained legal counsel and is cooperating with the authorities investigating this event. It is reported that the case will be presented to a grand jury for consideration. The shooter has not been arrested, and as a result the authorities are allowing him to remain anonymous.

The question now, of course, is whether the shooter’s use of deadly defensive force to stop Washington’s armed robbery was justified on the legal merits.

The answer? Yes, maybe, and almost certainly not.

Confused yet? Let’s clarify.

BASICS OF LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR USE OF DEADLY FORCE UNDER TEXAS LAW

Shooting someone dead is, of course, normally a crime. Under Texas law, and the law of every other state, however, the use of deadly force upon another might be legally justified, and not a crime, if it meets the conditions for deadly force defense of persons—meaning either defense of self or defense of others.

Additionally, and unique to the Lone Star state, the use of deadly force upon another might be legally justified even in defense of mere personal property—again, if the required legal conditions have been met.

Importantly, the legal conditions for justification must be met for each individual use of deadly force in the encounter—meaning, in this case, for each round fired by the shooter–and that’s where we arrive at the “yes, maybe, and almost certainly not” nature of whether this shooting is lawful.

The bottom line, of the nine rounds fired by the shooter at Washington, the first four were almost certainly legally justified, the second four may be legally justified, and the ninth and final shot almost certainly was not justified, based upon the only evidence currently available to us, which is the surveillance video of the encounter.

For purposes of this commentary and legal analysis, I’ll be addressing the shooter’s use of force as three distinct use of force events, each needing their own legal justification in order to be lawful.

Use-of-Force #1: The first four shots fired, roughly from the start of the video to 0:10 seconds.

Use-of-Force #2: The second four shots fired, roughly from 0:10 to 0:14 seconds in the video.

Use-of-Force #3: The ninth and final shot fired at about 0:16 seconds in the video.

The verdict? Based on Branca’s meticulous legal analysis, that ninth shot will probably doom RS in court, and I concur with utmost regret. But Branca being a modest sort (“But I’m just a small-town criminal defense attorney…”), he proffers a small caveat:

So, given the apparent lack of legal justification for that ninth and final shot, potentially an unjustified unlawful killing, does that mean the shooter in this case will be indicted, prosecuted, and convicted?

The answer is: Who knows?

What I’ve shared above is a legal analysis of this shooting, and it’s one I have great confidence in the legal merit of that analysis.

Questions about indictment, prosecution, and conviction, however, have considerations beyond legal merit.

A prosecutor’s office will typically be asking two distinct questions in evaluating how to handle such a case.

First:  What can we do, based on legal merit.

Second: What do we want to do, based on political considerations.

It’s not at all uncommon for prosecutors to use their discretion to give a break to an otherwise law-abiding armed citizen who may have been a bit sloppy in their use-of-force from a technical legal perspective.

The danger, of course, is the use of that discretion is far outside the defender’s own control–he’s now put his fate, potentially the rest of his life, in the hands of other people.

Perhaps they’ll use their discretion in a way favorable to the defender…but perhaps they won’t.

Political considerations are bound to loom particularly large here, given the rioting, burning, and all the usual trimmings amongst Houston’s large Feral Dindu population which giving RS any kind of “break” will almost certainly touch off in its wake.

Bottom line: thanks to an incomprehensible, disastrous decision to come forward and place his fate on the dysfunctional, out-of-balance scales of “justice,” RS will wind up spending the rest of his natural life behind bars for the heinous crime of defending himself against a vicious thug. In a post-Constitutional Amerika v2.0 bereft of law; any semblance of fairness or propriety; interracial comity; and any sense of the overriding urgency of maintaining civic order, only a blind fool would ever do such a thing. RS’s apparent faith in the badly-broken Amerikan “justice” system to do right by him might be touching, but in the end, said misplaced faith will be his undoing. I hate it, really I do, but he’s well and truly fucked at this point.

Update! As it turns out, and to the surprise of exactly no one, Evil Perp had already claimed the life of one innocent victim in the course of yet another of his habitual crime sprees.

Court documents also confirmed that Washington was released on parole in 2021 for a conviction of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, for which he had been sentenced to 15 years behind bars. Washington had been convicted in 2015 in connection to the murder of 52-year-old Hamid Waraich, the owner of a Boost Mobile cell phone store, who was fatally shot in the back during a robbery. He was paroled in 2021 after serving six years. One of the victim’s sons, Sean Waraich, called Washington ‘an evil criminal that took joy from harassing and robbing innocent families.’ He called the taqueria vigilante a ‘true hero,’ and said he ‘did the right thing in stopping the robber and protecting the community from a dangerous perpetrator.’

Aman Waraich, another son of Hamid, said: ‘If the guy who stopped Eric was around 10 years ago, maybe I’d still have my dad.’

Precisely so, tragically so. The simple truth of this young man’s plaintive, heartbroken words will resonate for years to come, in stark condemnation of a warped and upended system of revolving-door “justice” that would even dream of prosecuting Righteous Shooter. Washington was (sub)human detritus—garbage, nothing more nor less. RS is “guilty” only of taking out the fucking trash, a bit of housekeeping which was long overdue.

The REAL crime here is that EP was freed to walk the streets robbing, assaulting, and killing, instead of being behind bars where he should have been, and belonged. When might we expect to see that referred to a grand jury, I wonder?

2

Righteous shoot redux

Been halfway hunting around for the unexpurgated vid of the takedown of a feral niglet trying to rob everybody in a Mex restaurant in Houston with a fake gun, but no joy.

Until now.


Bill follows up:

The usual suspects are whining about the number of shots the hero expended into the armed robber, but the solution to that is to revise the law, not blame the shooter for protecting himself and the folks around him. Anyway, nobody ever prosecutes cops for shooting till their magazines are empty, even if the victim ends up looking like a pile of hamburger.

To which I responded in comments thusly:

BUT…BUT…BUT…BUT…why didn’t he just shoot the gun out of his haaaannnd?

Oh, how I just LOVE getting advice on proper use of firearms from people who have never even been in the same room with a gun, much less fired one, much less in a stress-shoot situation against a lawless, feral predator exhibiting malicious intentions towards them. Idiots.

Nice find, Bill. The feel-good video of the year.

And it surely is. Let the candy-ass Progtard hoplophobes and the “parents” of this no-longer-dangerous Dindu weep and wail away; for me, it’s exactly as the original poster of the vid said: Fuck around, find out. Kid didn’t wanna get his sorry ass ventilated, he shoulda stayed the hell home and kept away from better men than he’ll ever be. It was HIS decision to take a toy gun and do a little wil’in’ out ‘n’ sheeit, and his alone. Didn’t work out the way he thought it would, and that’s entirely on him. Tough shit for you, punk.

4
5

Hope springs eternal

However manifestly forlorn it may be.

The exhausting toils of the holidays are behind us; the mischief that could be done by the lame ducks in Congress has been done ($1.7 trillion Omnibus Spending Bill); and the time has come for the citizens of this land to get some answers about the escalating trips laid on them by their own government. The House of Representatives is in new hands. You’ll know in pretty short order whether they are capable, trustworthy hands, or just a blur of fast fingers running another three-card-monte table.

The most pressing questions abide around justice, and the gavel of the Judiciary Committee passes from the barely-alive Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) to the very animated Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). He needs to ask FBI Director Chris Wray how it came to be that the Bureau sat in possession of the Hunter Biden laptop during the impeachment of January 2020 and did not offer up to the defense the exculpatory evidence it abundantly contained in the way of business deal memos between the Biden family and officials in several foreign lands, Ukraine in particular. After all, the impeachment hinged on a telephone inquiry Mr. Trump made about just those matters. Was there a good reason for that phone call, or not? Obviously, there was, and Mr. Wray’s conduct looks like obstruction of justice in the highest degree.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) comes in as chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. He announced months ago that he would hold hearings on interesting issues such Hunter Biden’s taxes and exactly who has paid to support his new career as an “artist.”

We’ve got national security concerns with respect to Hunter Biden. We want to know if you remember who bought that expensive artwork when he was an artist for about three days and sold the artwork for half a million dollars. We want to know why the Russian oligarchs who paid Hunter Biden money were mysteriously left off the sanctions list when Joe Biden started putting sanctions on Russians and Russian oligarchs. We’ve got a lot of questions about shady business dealings that Hunter had and whether or not they impacted the Biden administration.

Next Mr. Wray has to answer for the FBI’s infiltration of social media. How did the top lawyer at the FBI, Jim Baker, come to be employed as the right-hand to Twitter’s chief censor, Vijaya Gadde? How did all those former FBI agents land at the company along with Jim Baker, and what did Mr. Wray have to do with the FBI demands to censor news and persons on matters of critical national importance such as vaccine safety and election fraud? How did more than a hundred former federal agents land on Facebook, Google, and other platforms? How did Mr. Wray decide to shut down the avenues of the First Amendment to the Constitution?

Next up: Attorney General Merrick Garland. On what grounds are pre-trial January 6 Riot suspects being held in the decrepit DC federal lockup without bail on rinky-dink charges two years after the event? How does that square with American due process of law? What did he know about the existence of the Hunter Biden laptop and the evidence it contained? What is he doing about it? How did Mr. Garland happen to target for prosecution parents protesting school board policies on race and sexual matters? Of course, Mr. Garland is going to evade answering by using the ploy that all these questions “pertains to ongoing investigations.” Mr. Jordan had better hire a gutsy chief counsel with some brains to penetrate that bodyguard of lies.

If the Special Subcommittee on the January 6 Riot is disbanded, turn the matter over to the Andy Biggs’ Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Let’s hear from Nancy Pelosi’s staff as to why her office (of the Speaker) turned down offers from the Trump White House for national guard protection that day. Let’s also hear from the then-chief of the Capitol Police, Steven Sund, who resigned from that job two days later — in consternation or disgrace? Bring back Mr. Wray and Mr. Garland. How many federal agents were circulating in the crowd the night before and on the day of the January 6 riot? Why was one Ray Epps never indicted for his much-recorded incitements to enter the Capitol? Who opened the magnetically-locked doors from the inside of the building? Stuff like that. What was the decision process for not charging officer Michael Byrd in the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt?

I hope it’s not too impertinent to suppose that the January 6 Riot was engineered by our government to embarrass and punish its political opponents — taking advantage of the First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” which was what that crowd had come to do in Washington DC that day. Interesting how a little tweaking here and there turned that into a convenient fiasco. Entrapment, anyone? And how government control and interference over social media and corporate news reinforced the narrative that the stage-managed riot was “an insurrection” — one of many actual “big lies” of our time nurtured by our government against its citizens.

A few other inquiries in this new Congress that need to commence ASAP: Can we hear from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas as to how come the US-Mexican Border is absolutely wide open; why his employees are transporting illegal aliens all around the USA; why he is running a program in Mexico to give Venezuelans and other select alien nationals “advanced authorization” and “two years parole,” then sneaking them into the USA through regular ports-of-entry?

Hey, I have an idea: maybe Miss Lindsey “Talk-talk” Graham can empanel another of his vaunted Blue Ribbon Commissions™ to “get to the bottom” of this extensive litany of corruption, malfeasance, and dysfunction again!

1

Christmas ruined by panic-ninnies

An awkward little Christmas.

Have Yourself an Awkward Little Christmas…
Christmas will never be the same again. For the same reason that America will never be the same again. Millions of us will never be able to look upon some of our fellow Americans – including some of our friends and family members – as we once did, ever again.

The ones who turned their backs on us – and worse – for questioning what we rightly identified as a mass hysteria they embraced. Who feared and loathed us, because we would not wear a “mask” – which we didn’t because we knew that putting it on only fueled the mass hysteria. We didn’t wear the things for their sakes as well as our own. For the sake of calm and common sense. To show normality rather than “masked” insanity. For doing that – often at the cost of being denied not merely service but our ability to earn a living – we were abused as pathologically selfish, granny-killing ne’er do-wells.

They told us we weren’t welcome in their homes at Christmas. That we weren’t welcome, period. Unless, of course, we bought in to their hysteria and played along.

We who questioned – and disobeyed – were cast out, by those who did not question and mindlessly obeyed.

Some of these friends and family members would have supported more than just excommunicating us from their  homes and lives and from society, generally. When the drugs that aren’t vaccines were rolled out, many were in favor of everyone being forced to take them. Tens of millions of people were effectively forced to take them, being under duress. They were told to take the drugs – or take a hike. Lose your job – or lose your bodily autonomy and your self-respect, having bent knee to a violation of your body for the sake of grubby money.

Some of the most hysteric wanted (and no doubt still want in their secret hearts) to see everyone forced to take the drugs they took, perhaps for the same vicious and ugly reason that some people resent people who “get away” with not being made to do what they were made to do.

They then blamed us when they got the sickness they’d been “vaccinated” against. The illogic of that escaping them.

Logic? What is this “logic” of which you speak? Shitlibs and Fauxvid panic-ninnies (BIRM) know not of this phantasmagorical “logic.”

Now we are supposed to pretend it all never happened and sit down for Christmas dinner with these people. It is not quite sleeping with the enemy but it’s not that far from it, either. For, no matter the superficialities, the feigned pleasantries of our previous association, they regard us with suspicion and contempt.

Just as we so regard them.

They know we know what they did, just as we know they know what we didn’t do. They perhaps feel ashamed, some of them. In which case, it would help things greatly if they were to say so – and ask our forgiveness for what they did to us and supported being done to us. We might then be able to forgive them.

But can we ever trust them again? Would George Washington have given Benedict Arnold another command, if he’d apologized for betraying Washington’s trust? Only if Washington were an idiot.

Are we?

Quite the thorny little conundrum, I’d say. Sadly, we have our answer already, and for all too many of us, that answer can only be: Yes. Yes, we are.

2

The making of a martyr

Mike’s Iron Law #873 remains in effect: They will NOT stop. They will have to BE stopped.

Third Time’s a Charm For Merrick Garland
Would Merrick Garland have wheeled out the old special counsel wheeze absent Trump’s announcement that he was running for president again?

Of course he would’ve. As I’ve said till I’m blue in the face, the Swamp will hound and persecute Trump until they can finally get him behind bars, the better to close out the books on him by Epsteining the poor schlub shortly thereafter.

Sure, this will be the third special counsel assigned to harass Donald Trump, the most investigated American president in history. It would be nice if Garland could lure Robert Mueller out from his Golden Pond activities to take on the attack against the once and possibly future president once more. I suspect, though, that Mueller is too deep in Bidenesque (or Fettermanesque) mental twilight to mount that steed again. Maybe Garland can harness up the despicable Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s brain and primary dogsbody in the now thoroughly discredited “Russian collusion” delusion.

The predicates for the new special counsel are not too promising. One has to do with Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, when some of his supporters, along with lots of FBI plants masquerading as Trump supporters, marched on the U.S. Capitol. The other has to do with what classified documents Trump may have sequestered at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the presidency.

The first is unpromising because, notwithstanding the exertions of loopy Liz Cheney to demonstrate his culpability for the January 6 jamboree, Trump had nothing to do with the almost entirely peaceful Capitol breach. His last two tweets that day (just a day or two before he got thrown off the platform) cannot have pleased the future CNN or MSNBC hostess Cheney:

I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order—respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!

Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!

Not much to work with there, Liz, but as a famous Russian once said, “Show me the man and I will find you the crime.”

“Unpromising,” Kimball says, as if AG Lavrentiy Garland cared one whit about what’s true and what is demonstrably not. As if the “American” “Justice” Dept had anything whatever to do with anything even remotely resembling justice. As if the FUSA still had any kind of “rule of law” in place to check such evil skullduggery. I have to believe that, deep down, Kimball knows all this.

We do know, however, that when it comes to government harassment, “the process is the punishment.” The state has unlimited resources with which to torment people it doesn’t like, and on that list of people it doesn’t like, Donald J. Trump gets star billing.

It has long been clear that America now operates under a two-tier judicial system. Notice that I did not say a “two-tier system of justice.” Absent the virtue of impartiality, there is no justice. There is a flagrant absence of impartiality in the contemporary American judiciary. How else could Joe Biden, who obviously profited from his family’s foreign connections in China, Ukraine, and elsewhere, go uninvestigated? How else could Hunter Biden escape any serious scrutiny? You can add Hillary Clinton and a large cast of Democratic apparatchiks from the FBI and our intelligence services to that list.

But let’s say you were wandering around the grounds of the Capitol on January 6, 2021: Pow! you are caught up in a nationwide dragnet and tossed into a Washington gulag for many months before you are treated to a biased trial. If you are Steve Bannon and you refuse a congressional subpoena, you are indicted, convicted, and given jail time. If you are Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s “wingman” and attorney general, exactly nothing happens to you.

The establishment hates Donald Trump for many good reasons. He did a lot to wreck their concessions during his first term and, should he again win the presidency, the gloves would be off and their gravy train would be over.

I suspect that Michael Anton is right: They can’t let him back in because Trump’s attack on the regulatory “deep state” with all its globalist affiliations would bring their elitist party to an abrupt end. “The people who really run the United States of America,” Anton wrote, “have made it clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald Trump to be president again.”

He most certainly will NOT be. And even if Trump somehow miraculously manages to slip by them as in 2016, he will be stymied exactly as he was the first time out. By many of the very same people who put the arm on back then, actually.

There IS a bright side to all this, however, even if it won’t be a lot of help to one Donald John Trump in the interim: martyring him could well prove to be the proverbial spark that sets off a long-smoldering powderkeg of righteous rage and retribution at long, long last, leading to a potential grassroots uprising that would make the phonus-balonus J6 FBInsurrection look like the debutante’s cotillion it so truly was. In which case, scoundrels like Garland and the rest of the Swamp rats might finally get what’s coming to them, and Justice will finally be visited upon them.

Update! As should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with his reliably brilliant work, I couldn’t resist a look at the Mike Anton piece linked above by Kimball, which had somehow gotten by me when it first appeared back in July.

Love him or hate him, during Trump’s presidency, the economy was strong, markets were up, inflation was under control, gas prices were low, illegal border crossings were down, crime was lower, trade deals were renegotiated, ISIS was defeated, NATO allies were stepping up, and China was stepping back (a little). Deny all that if you want to. The point here is that something like 100 million Americans believe it, strongly, and are bewildered and angered by elite hatred for the man they think delivered it.

Nor was Trump’s record all that radical—much less so than that of Joe Biden, who is using school-lunch funding to push gender ideology on poor kids, to cite but one example. Trump’s core agenda—border protection, trade balance, foreign restraint—was quite moderate, both intrinsically and in comparison to past Republican and Democratic precedent. And that’s before we even get to the fact that Trump neglected much of his own agenda in favor of the old Chamber of Commerce, fusionist, Reaganite, Conservatism, Inc., agenda. Corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and bombing Syria: These are all things Trump’s base doesn’t want, but the oligarchs desperately do, which Trump gave them. And still they try to destroy him.

Again, why? I think it’s because, while Trump’s core MAGA agenda is decidedly not outside the historic bipartisan mainstream, it is well outside the present regime’s core interests. Our rulers’ wealth and power rise with open borders, trade giveaways, and endless war. Trump, at least in principle, and often in practice, threatens all three. The old America—the one in which Republicans cared about the heartland and weren’t solely valets to corporate power, Democrats were pro-worker and anti-war, and Bill Clinton and The New York Times could advocate border security—is in the process of being replaced, if it hasn’t already been, by one in which there is only one acceptable opinion on not just these, but all other issues.

Anti-Trump hysteria is in the final analysis not about Trump. The regime can’t allow Trump to be president not because of who he is (although that grates), but because of who his followers are. That class—Angelo Codevilla’s “country class”—must not be allowed representation by candidates who might implement their preferences, which also, and above all, must not be allowed. The rubes have no legitimate standing to affect the outcome of any political process, because of who they are, but mostly because of what they want.

Complaints about the nature of Trump are just proxies for objections to the nature of his base. It doesn’t help stabilize our already twitchy situation that those who bleat the loudest about democracy are also audibly and visibly determined to deny a real choice to half the country. “No matter how you vote, you will not get X”—whether X is a candidate or a policy—is guaranteed to increase discontent with the present regime.

Yep, Anton is bang on point yet again. From there, he rolls up his sleeves to delve right into the real nitty-gritty of the whole shebang, and as usual, it’s a wonder to behold.

3

The greatest story lie ever told

I repeat: if it weren’t for lies, they’d have nothing to say at all.

More than two years since the lockdowns of 2020, the political mainstream, particularly on the left, is just beginning to realize that the response to Covid was an unprecedented catastrophe.

But that realization hasn’t taken the form of a mea culpa. Far from it. On the contrary, in order to see that reality is starting to dawn on the mainstream left, one must read between the lines of how their narrative on the response to Covid has evolved over the past two years.

The narrative now goes something like this: Lockdowns never really happened, because governments never actually locked people in their homes; but if there were lockdowns, then they saved millions of lives and would have saved even more if only they’d been stricter; but if there were any collateral damage, then that damage was an inevitable consequence of the fear from the virus independent of the lockdowns; and even when things were shut down, the rules weren’t very strict; but even when the rules were strict, we didn’t really support them.

Put simply, the prevailing narrative of the mainstream left is that any upside from the response to Covid is attributable to the state-ordered closures and mandates that they supported, while any downside was an inevitable consequence of the virus independent of any state-ordered closures and mandates which never happened and which anyway they never supported. Got it? Good.

Astonishingly, in a debate on Monday, Charlie Crist, Democratic candidate for governor of Florida, accused Ron DeSantis of being “the only governor in the history of Florida that’s ever shut down our schools.” “You’re the only governor in the history of Florida that shut down our businesses,” Crist went on, “I never did that as governor. You’re the one who’s the shutdown guy.”

In fact, as DeSantis pointed out, Crist had publicly sued DeSantis to keep kids out of school in 2020, and he wrote DeSantis a letter in July 2020 saying the entire state should still be in lockdown.

Arguments like these are as facile as they are transparent. Does anyone honestly think these people would be arguing that lockdowns didn’t happen, or that it’s impossible to measure their effects, if the policy had been a success?

Read on for an incredibly chilling rundown of the veritably incalculable and multifarious damage done by those newly “nonexistent” lockdowns—first and foremost among that being, for me at least, the wreckage it made of such piffling concerns as individual autonomy, self-determination, and the very idea of unalienable, Constitutionally-protected rights.

The piece continues from there with pictures, almost none of which I’d seen before, putting this wanton, needless destruction on display for all to see and be shamed by. Bottom line? You’ve been had. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled.

By pretending that all of these horrors were attributable to public panic, apologists for the response to Covid are attempting to shift blame away from the political machines that imposed lockdowns and mandates onto individuals and their families. This is, of course, despicable and bunk. People did not voluntarily go hungry, or stand in the freezing cold to get food, or remove themselves from hospitals while they were still sick, or bankrupt their own businesses, or force their own kids to sit outside in the cold, or march hundreds of miles in exodus after losing their jobs in factories.

The collective denial of these horrors, and the refusal of media, financial, and political elites to report on them, amounts to nothing less than the greatest act of gaslighting that we’ve seen in modern times.

Further, the argument that all of these terrible outcomes could be attributed to public panic rather than state-imposed mandates would be far more convincing if governments hadn’t taken unprecedented actions to deliberately panic the public.

Does it get even worse yet? Oh, you bet your sweet bippy it does.

report later revealed that military leaders had seen Covid as a unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on the public, “shaping” and “exploiting” information to bolster support for government mandates. Dissenting scientists were silenced. Government psyops teams deployed fear campaigns on their own people in a scorched-earth campaign to drive consent for lockdowns.

Moreover, as a study by Cardiff University demonstrated, the primary factor by which citizens judged the threat of COVID-19 was their own government’s decision to employ lockdown measures. “We found that people judge the severity of the COVID-19 threat based on the fact the government imposed a lockdown—in other words, they thought, ‘it must be bad if government’s taking such drastic measures.’ We also found that the more they judged the risk in this way, the more they supported lockdown.” The policies thus created a feedback loop in which the lockdowns and mandates themselves sowed the fear that made citizens believe their risk of dying from COVID-19 was hundreds of times greater than it really was, in turn causing them to support more lockdowns and mandates.

Those who publicly spoke against lockdowns and mandates were ostracized and vilified—denounced by mainstream outlets like the New York Times, CNN, and health officials as “neo-Nazis” and “white nationalists.” Further, among those who really believed the mainstream Covid narrative—or merely pretended to—all the authoritarian methods that had supposedly contributed to China’s “success” against Covid, including censoring, canceling, and firing those who disagreed, were on the table.

Though many now claim to have opposed these measures, the truth is that publicly opposing lockdowns when they were at their apex in spring 2020 was lonely, frightening, thankless, and hard. Few did.

A-HENH. Actually, although it was certainly lonely, I saw nothing whatsoever hard about it, much less frightening; way more frightening to me was how very many of us failed to see through this patently bogus nonsense, even supported it at the time.

This revisionism is all the more disappointing because a small handful of politicians including Ron DeSantis, Imran Khan, and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have proven that admitting error in implementing lockdowns and mandates isn’t that hard, and can even be politically profitable.

The same should go for the political left. Thus far, we have yet to see anything remotely resembling regret from any leader on the left, but this is what a decent, Truman-era Democrat might say in these circumstances:

“The lockdowns of 2020 were a terrible mistake. While they were outside my field, it was my duty to properly vet the credibility of the advice that was coming from health officials and to end the mandates as soon as it was clear they weren’t working. In that role, I failed, and you all have my humblest apologies. Given the unprecedented harm that’s been done by these mandates, I support a full investigation into how this advice came about, in part to ensure there hasn’t been any untoward communist influence on these policies.”

Those who spoke against lockdowns and mandates in early 2020 showed that they were willing to stand up for the freedoms and Enlightenment principles for which our forebears fought so tirelessly, even when doing so was lonely, thankless, and hard. For that reason, anyone who did so has reason to feel extremely proud, and the future would be brighter if they were in positions of leadership. That fact is now becoming increasingly clear—unfortunately, even to those who did the opposite. One more reason to keep all the receipts.

Any liberty-oriented American worth his salt must never, ever forget the needless, intentional disaster of Spring 2020, on pain of seeing one of the bleakest chapters of our history repeat itself. Because it’s for sure and certain that they’re going to try, and the only way they can get away with it again is if We The People allow them to. If you only read through all of one thing I link to this entire weekend, this one absolutely must be it.

(Via Ed Driscoll)

2

Free advice, and worth every penny

Meh, who gives a shit what they think? About this, or anything else?

At this point, it would save everyone time if Democrats could simply point to a policy agenda item that isn’t going to save democracy — if such a thing exists.

If Republicans vote, they are killing democracy. If they don’t vote, they are killing democracy. The only way to “save democracy,” writes The Washington Post’s Max Boot, is to empower one-party rule — a position that probably sounds counterintuitive to anyone with a middle-school education. “Now you need to vote to literally save democracy again,” contends President Joe Biden, or we will lose our “fundamental rights and freedoms like the right to choose, the right to privacy, the right to vote — our very democracy.”

The day I seek out the likes of Max fucking Boot (!) for his thoughts on how “our Sacred Democracy” might be “saved” is the day I…well, okay, that day ain’t never, EVER gonna come.

Chilling stuff. But it doesn’t end there. You will remember that by failing to “reform” the filibuster, which would entail authorizing the thinnest of fleeting majorities to shove through massive generational “reforms” without any national consensus or debate, we are also killing democracy. This has been the position not only of left-wing pundits and the New York Times editorial board, but also senators tasked with defending their institution. I wonder if they will support this democracy-saving fix next session, as well?

Then again, if we don’t nationalize the economy to avert a climate crisis, we are also killing democracy. “We’ve got to save democracy in order to save our species,” Jamie Raskin explains. And if we don’t empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to temporarily keep gas prices low to help Democrats win in 2022, we are killing democracy. “We find ourselves in a situation, where keeping gas prices low is key to preserving and strengthening the future of our democracy,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes says.

We must allow the president to unilaterally create trillion-dollar spending bills and break existing private sector contracts by fiat. For democracy. We must pack the court to “save democracy.” We must create a Ministry of Truth to help with “strengthening democratic institutions.” We must vote for a Pennsylvania candidate who can’t cobble two consecutive coherent sentences together because the “fate of our democracy” is at stake, says our former president.

If you don’t support a partisan congressional investigation that’s circumvented basic due process norms, you probably hate democracy. If you aren’t self-flagellating and holding yourself accountable for the actions of Jan. 6 rioters, you are also bolstering the coming autocracy.

It’s an amusing enough column, and Harsanyi has always been a fine writer. In the end, though, it’s all just dog-bites-man stuff, offering nothing whatsoever new or earth-shattering. Personally, I find it grating at best to be lectured on “saving democracy” by practicing fascists. Not one of the above-mentioned sources will ever say anything of genuine interest or merit as far as I’m concerned, to judge by their record to date. Every man Jack of them can go straight to Hell for all me and remain there for the duration. And they can take their disingenuous “concern” for Our Sacred Democracy™ with ’em when they go, too.

1

With “leaders” like this, who would want to follow?

Upon checking in over at Diplomad’s joint, imagine my surprise at finding he’d brazenly, audaciously purloined the title of his latest offering from me!

Nah, not really. Anselm’s post actually appeared the day before mine went up, so it’s merely a case of great minds thinking alike. At any rate, it’s a good ‘un.

Having an ever-harder time writing about US and Western politics and society.

Dangerous buffoons head the governments of the major Western countries. Right here, once the greatest place on earth, we have leadership at both the national and local level that would prove an international embarrassment if not nearly all the other leaders around the world also prove embarrassments.

No major Western country has a leader worth admiring or, at least, about whom one can feel moderately hopeful. Canada? Australia? UK? France? NZ? All led by morons of varying degree who have bought into the Woke nonsense destroying Western Civilization. They prattle on about equity, climate change, inclusivity, open borders, “diversity is our strength,” gender “identity,” etc. The only glimmers of hope come from heads of “lesser” powers: Italy, Singapore, Hungary, and–for now, though probably not for long–Brazil.

As though that did not prove enough to fill one with despair, these self-hating creeps seem determined to get us into war, the hot kind, including the use of nuclear weapons. We have ZOMBUS Biden, speaking to a conclave of Democratic donors, idly speculating about how close we are to nuclear “Armageddon.” Oh, his handlers immediately say, pay no mind, it’s just a passing thought, one of many pouring through the sieve that the man with his finger on our nuclear trigger calls a brain. He, or whoever writes his stuff, seeks to draw an equivalence between the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and the Russian war against Ukraine–rubbish of the most dangerous kind. This is even worse than when our “leaders” in the recent past kept finding an equivalence between every challenge they faced and Munich 1938. Making it all even worse, of course, is that nobody I can find trusts Biden’s leadership or managerial abilities. All those who hate Trump might want to reflect on how much more dangerous an international situation the West now faces when compared to when the “Mean Tweeter” held power. Now, we have chaos everywhere we look.

Russian leader Putin has gotten himself and his country and the world into a tremendous mess. To be fair, he warned us repeatedly that Ukraine’s joining NATO was a red line for Moscow. We, in response, sent Willie Brown’s mistress, Kamala Harris, to Europe to announce how we would welcome Ukraine into NATO. The Cuba analogy is reversed. When Moscow pushed up to our shores in 1962, we responded with the threat of nuclear war. Ukraine is Russia’s Cuba–on steroids.

What did our leaders think (“think,” who thinks anymore?) would be Moscow’s response? Invasion. Poorly planned, poorly executed, but, nevertheless an invasion, a bloody and brutal one, at that. The Kyiv bunch called in their chits; they, after all, own the Biden crime family. Billions of dollars in equipment and financial support poured out from the US treasury, headed for the Kyiv kleptos. Preserving the sanctity of Ukraine’s borders became the greatest moral crusade since WWII! Never mind the borders of Western Europe or our own. No! Those borders are evil and deserve to be violated! But, Ukraine’s? Those are set in cement! The whole fate of the world depends on those borders! No suffering by our citizens is enough! Turn the global economy upside down! It’s all for a sacred cause!

To be blunt about it, I’ve had little to no sympathy for Ukraine’s plight from Day One of this shitshow, seeing as how Ukraine’s gangster-government has functioned primarily as a Democrat Party ATM for years. Its corruption is endemic, deeply embedded, and apparently intractable. I do have some sympathy for the ordinary folks there who are caught up in this bloody maelstrom, yes. But when all’s said and done, if Putin wants to bend The Country Formerly Known As THE Ukraine™ over for a good, hard rogering, I couldn’t care less.

7

I’m shocked—SHOCKED!

Gee, whodathunk it?

Vegetarians have around twice as many depressive episodes as meat-eaters, according to a new study.

The study, based on survey data from Brazil, chimes with earlier research that found higher rates of depression among those who forgo meat. However, the new study suggests that this link exists independent of nutritional intake.

Well, I mean, DUH. Who wouldn’t be depressed? I did the vegetarian thing back in the 80s myself for about a year or so, until it hit me like a bolt out of the blue that life is just too damned short to squander it wholly bereft of wondrous blessings like bacon, steak, Chicago hot dogs, cheeseburgers.

The depressed vegetarian, in this case, is not necessarily wrong to think this way.

I repeat: DUH. Given the well-known congruence between vegetarian/veganism and Leftard political beliefs, let the stupid, miserable fucks have it, I say—all they want of it, plus some. As the old bumpersticker mocking PETA types used to say:

Yum
Stands for People Eating Tasty Animals

(Via Insty)

1

Recent Posts

  • The burning question
    TL asks it. If Not War, Then What? One cannot be loyal […]
    3 Comments
  • Good show!
    I know I said yesterday that the animal-rights […]
    2 Comments
  • The Sumter Gambit
    A look at Robert Spencer’s new book of the same name. […]
    1 Comment
  • Headlines
    Top stories at The Liberty Daily as of this writing: […]
    5 Comments
  • Moar Substackery
    Humble thanks to the handful of folks who have signed […]
    2 Comments

Recent Comments

Comments policy

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't. Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

"Mike Hendrix is, without a doubt, the greatest one-legged blogger in the world." ‐Henry Chinaski

Mike @Substack

Allied territory

Alternatives to shitlib social media:

Fuck you

Kill one for mommy today! Click to embiggen

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Claire's Cabal—The Freedom Forums

FREEDOM!!!

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Daniel Webster

“A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him.”
Ezra Pound

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
Frank Zappa

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.”
John Adams

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."
Bertrand de Jouvenel

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."
GK Chesterton

"I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free."
Donald Surber

"The only way to live free is to live unobserved."
Etienne de la Boiete

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil."
Skeptic

"There is no better way to stamp your power on people than through the dead hand of bureaucracy. You cannot reason with paperwork."
David Black, from Turn Left For Gibraltar

"If the laws of God and men, are therefore of no effect, when the magistracy is left at liberty to break them; and if the lusts of those who are too strong for the tribunals of justice, cannot be otherwise restrained than by sedition, tumults and war, those seditions, tumults and wars, are justified by the laws of God and man."
John Adams

"The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Frederick Douglass

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine."
Joseph Goebbels

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
Ronald Reagan

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it."
NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in."
Bill Whittle

Best of the best

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS feed

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

Contact


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

Copyright © 2023