The Complete American Disassembly Manual – Bill Reader


The Complete American Disassembly Manual – Bill Reader

Today’s article is dedicated to the Democratic party. In an act of generosity, and in very simple terms, I’m going to explain to you how you can have everything you want. Every last thing I disagree with fundamentally. Every single dark socialist desire that you wish to see supplant the fundamental freedoms on which this country is founded. I am, believe me, not particularly happy about doing so, and there are no tricks. You may question my motives, but humor me and I’ll reveal them in time.
Among other things, it may be clearer once you understand the small, regrettable detail of the price.

Now, first, of course, we’ll have to define what it is I think you want. Depending on whether Sarah is able to publish this article in time, this list should cover at least the things I think are most important. It is by no means comprehensive, but allow me to do my poor best at catching, say, the top 10 key ideas.

At present, to a greater or lesser extent—this is from following your primaries and your leading politicians— you would like:
1) Mandatory gun confiscation/ “buybacks”

2) Universal centralized healthcare— including things not universally agreed to be “health care”, such as free sex-changes, free and utterly secret abortions for any female old enough to physically become pregnant, and mandatory contraceptive coverage without exception

3) A centrally planned economy with regards to energy production, the better to expedite “green” technology being implemented

4) Mandatory car confiscation concurrent with massively expanded public transportation initiatives

5) The banning or heavy taxation of “inefficient” foodstuffs, especially beef, in favor of theoretically energy-efficient vegetarian diets and even—I can hardly believe I’m having to write this— insect-based foods

6) Unrestrained censorship of conservatives in media generally

7) The right for government agencies to remove through extrajudicial means a sitting president whom you personally dislike
8) Universal basic guaranteed income

9) Slavery reparations

10) Essential dissolution of the nation’s borders in the form of absolutely uncontrolled immigration.

Now, you may only want some of the things on this list, I admit, and hence consider yourself a moderate. It will not surprise you to know that in my opinion—and I say the following merely so you understand I’m not trying to lull you with false flattery— believing in absolutely anything on this list means you are not only not a moderate, you’ve forgotten, or never learned, key things about the fundamental philosophy of America. We’ll beg to differ from one another for the duration of the article, though, because it’s not really important. We have plenty of time to clash about philosophy later.

It may interest you to know that you can, in fact, have these things. Really. Oh, there is a problem, of course. The problem is that the current laws of the United States, including, yes, the constitution, make it completely illegal for you to simply proceed with several of them.

Mandatory confiscation or a mandatory buyback—which is expensive confiscation, but by right of the fact that it is mandatory is definitionally still confiscation— contravenes the 2nd amendment. If you are guaranteed a right to bear arms, and the government is confiscating your arms, you can try to spin it any way you like, the government has officially infringed what it is explicitly forbidden from infringing.

If a person’s employment in a certain field means they work exclusively for the government, for whatever wages, on whatever terms, with no alternative except not working in that field—then you are advocating a form of slavery, in contravention of the 13th amendment. That applies not only to doctors being forced to work under nationalized healthcare but any people whose work is forcibly reassigned in the midst of setting up a centrally planned green economy.

If you plan on taking coal plants from their owners, remodeling houses whether owners like it or not (as the Green New Deal advocates), confiscating cars, confiscating foodstuff or animals either from consumers or the producers of same—all these things are in contravention of the 4th amendment. You cannot just take people’s things at your own whim with no rationale other than you want them because your cause of the moment demands it.

You can’t use governmental powers to censor conservatives because of the 1st amendment. Obviously. Though I have to say that so far Silicon Valley is doing a good job of sparing you the necessity and the useful idiots over at, say, “The Bulwark” are assisting you.

Also, Republicans do get to be elected. Read the 12th amendment if you don’t believe me. Just because you don’t like the system by which they are elected, just because you don’t like the Republican who gets elected, does not give you carte blanch to remove them by means other than a legitimate election. There’s a process laid out for electing a president and in no part does it read that the president can be removed by extrajudicial tampering by unelected agencies at the behest of his predecessor and his opponent in the presidential campaign. Nor, I imagine, would this process have been a welcome addition.

I grant you that not every single thing you want is explicitly forbidden by the constitution, but, on the other hand, as we can see above, much of it is.

Now, at present, your strategy is to just ignore that this is the case. Strangely, however, no provision was made in the constitution for it to simply expire when it became too old or inconvenient. Generally we conservatives feel that this was extremely intentional, given that the principles were designed to govern humans and the general nature of humans was considered fairly predictable within certain bounds. As I understand it, your side feels this was merely an oversight, and—I have to assume—that the rules were either derived for some other purpose than the stated one of preventing what have historically been the predictable over-reaches of would-be tyrants, or else, more incredibly, that human nature itself has changed.

Whichever you believe, proceeding in accordance with these beliefs would be relatively unwise. I don’t endorse violent changes to government for much the same reason I don’t endorse the FBI’s shenanigans regarding the Trump administration. I will, however, note that armed services personnel swear oaths to the constitution, not to any particular elected official. While I do not doubt that some portion of the armed forces would be in compliance if, as Swalwell suggested, they were directed against their fellow citizens for unconstitutional reasons, I harbor some doubts that all of them would be. “Befehle sind befehle” is not a phrase one wishes to find oneself resorting to, given its legacy, and I suspect some of our service men and women are aware of that fact.
Let’s make no bones about the fact that even if you had 100% military support, however, first, you’d be making orders in direct and unambiguous contravention of US law in a way that really doesn’t require a court to explain. Remember that at its core, the reason we on the Right are generally adamant that violence not be resorted to while there is any reasonable alternative is essentially because of what happens if the principle is universalized. If violence is an acceptable route to power, then we’re not even really pretending to be a Republic, or a Democracy, or a country any longer. We’re an argument with borders. There’s a reciprocal agreement that the government will not do anything requiring violence, (and no other reasonable course of action), to redress. What things actually fall into what category—I would argue because our education in civics is completely remiss— are increasingly arbitrated by the judicial system.
Insofar as the judicial system is mainly used as the arbiter of late, you might find yourself—in fact from listening to you I know you find yourself—wondering if there is anything at all that is such an obvious abuse of power that the courts wouldn’t need to be called in to arbitrate. And following closely on that thought, you’re wondering where that line is mostly so you can walk right up to it. Put another way, what you’re attempting to do is call the bluff of the American people, and argue that there is, in fact, no practical, ultimate check on government authority at all, apart from you being “polite” enough not to just blithely ignore the laws that restrict what laws you can make.

Yet I hope we can at least agree that even if you think that should be an allowable way to run a country, it’s still a dangerous way to run a country. If nothing else, in the abstract, when A) the country in question has a civilian populace better armed than many nation’s militaries, and B) the culture of the country includes a substantial percentage of people who draw the line of when violent resistance is acceptable a little more, pardon the pun, conservatively than you and perhaps even I do, I hope you can at least see why you are, at best, courting civil war by engaging in constitutional brinksmanship.

Why not do it differently?

It may shock and amaze you to know that there are laws even for the changing of laws. Yes! There’s an actual legal framework available to you. Amazingly, the drafters of the constitution imagined that perhaps we would someday want to amend it. They even put in place a method of doing so. In fact, it has actually been done! Several times, in fact.

“All” you have to do is get a 2/3rds majority in the House of representatives and the senate to support your change, or get 2/3rds of state legislatures to call a constitutional convention and agree to it. Then, three quarters of the states need to ratify it. Interestingly, the president isn’t strictly necessary, though sometimes he signs something for the look of the thing anyway.

I hasten to add that the fact that a process was added for changing the constitution further shames those of you who just want to ignore it. See, I suspect that many of you know damn well that we have legitimate rules that you are willfully ignoring. I suspect that many of you are willfully ignoring the rules precisely because you know that you don’t have nearly the support or the mandate necessary to play within them. And instead of doing the self-reflection that ought to be stimulated by the fact that the system seems designed to prevent precisely what you are attempting, instead of wondering why that might be, your response so far has been to simply refuse to play by the legitimate rules. All this in an exceedingly misguided attempt to force your beliefs on the entire American public, as if the rules for changing the constitution were just one more limitation whose reason and origin was a mystery to you. Whether you admit it or not, if that characterization defines you, you are already exactly the tyrant the constitution was designed to restrain. You already think of yourself more as living on the brutal and direct terms of power and force than any civilized articulation of raw nature that’s come after, and you kid yourself if you think there’s any kind of compassion motivating that. To you, I say: the limits you are hitting are not at all arbitrary—au contraire, you personally are the reason they exist. I hope I am not being too cagey on this point.

But let’s say, entirely for the sake of argument, that you hadn’t heard. It’s entirely possible, in this world of state-run education designed more for propaganda than didactic value. I said I was not glad to provide this information, and I meant it. There was a time this wouldn’t have warranted an article. The modern Democratic party shows that those times are behind us.

Of course, you may complain that the bar for constitutional change is a very, very high bar. That is because, as I previously mentioned, the constitution—especially the original amendments— were drafted explicitly to prevent formation of a tyrannical government, by people who were highly motivated insofar as they were rebels against a tyrannical government. You’d be surprised how hard such men can make life. Ask England.

But what if you’re unwilling to play by those rules? Surely the bar is too high?

Ah, well, here we part ways, my friend. But I can tell you now, you’re a fool if you think the height of that bar is adjustable merely by writing down an easier-to-reach number.

Look— Let’s say you really, genuinely, had 51% absolute majority in the country. I don’t think you do, in fact, though nobody can really say one way or another since last I checked non-voters who could legally vote were either at or close to the largest majority in the country. But let’s say you did, purely for the sake of argument. I think that in your minds, 51% of the country abrogating the basic rights of the other 49% is some kind of stable, tenable configuration for a country. You seem to think, intrinsically, that there really wouldn’t be anything you couldn’t do with a solid 51%, and certainly so if you could bump it to maybe 52 or 53%. Majority rules, right? Because laws—in this as in all other things—are some kind of magic in your heads, and you can just ignore the ones you find inconvenient but also, all the ones you pass are going to be immediately followed.

But that’s not how things are written, is it. Why not? Why such a high bar?

Because where your goal is just to win whatever things your cause wants today no matter the long-term consequences, the goal of the drafters of the constitution was a stable society. That meant some kind of nod to how humans work and think. You may have noticed that a stable society does not look like, for example, what I predict the general response would be if you tried to confiscate guns. On some level, precisely because nobody really knows exactly what would happen, except the smart money is that it would be messy and you wouldn’t like the outcome. That’s not exactly what a popular mandate looks like.

No, you want to know ultimately why 2/3rds of both houses need to approve a law? Because 66 people against 33 have a much, much better chance of winning in a straight-up fight than 51 or 52 or 53 against 49, 48, or 47. Such a good chance, in fact, that the fight is unlikely to happen. And the constitution is drafted in such a way that people aren’t supposed to feel tempted to have a violent argument about things that are passed into it and then people have to live by. Because—assuming, again, your goal is stability— laws on what laws may be passed shouldn’t themselves be  passed unless they are really, really popular. Barely tolerated is not enough.

This is why, when you’re talking about fundamental basis of a country’s laws, what you would probably think of as a nearly unreachable clear majority doesn’t come anywhere close to what you really need. And yet, dislike it though you may, that threshold is yet another fact imposed by nature itself and arrayed against you. It exists precisely because of the instability inherent in defining things otherwise—such as in the way you would prefer.

Maybe you don’t care. Maybe you’d still rather pretend the law is other than it is rather than follow it.

Just remember, it can be mighty hard to tell a populace to do as you say, not as you do.

213 thoughts on “The Complete American Disassembly Manual – Bill Reader

  1. So much pearls before swine, sadly. The reason it’s pointless to explain rules to liberals is that their entire mentality is built on the rules not applying to them. On having different laws based on race, religion, sex, ethnicity, hair color, smartphone brand, preference for the Star Wars prequels and/or sequels compared to the Original Trilogy, and of course, political affiliation. Or in short, rules for thee, not for me.

    I reckon the reason for this is simple – an actual unified and objective framework – like the Constitution, for one – would mean unified and objective standards, universal measures to be applied for all people. Which would inevitably mean some scoring higher than others. Some people make more money. Some people are more accomplished. Some people are better at underwater basket-weaving than others. And while conservatives attribute these disparities most often to differences in effort, dedication, focus, discipline, or even just casual interest in the field, to liberals, they’re static; immutable; inherent.

    Like some form of pseudo-medieval nobility, liberals love nothing more than to define people in strict categories and classes, based on birth alone, with no amount of effort resulting in actual social mobility. You can see it in liberal-dominated industries, the media most obviously, where management structures are top-heavy, competition is disparaged at every turn, and career development is only achieved on your knees… in every sense of the word.

    For that matter, you can see it in liberal-oriented fiction itself, especially sci-fi and fantasy, where deliberate divisions exist between the special snowflake main characters and the commoners – mages and muggles, mutants and humans, shadowhunters and mundanes etc. For all their talk of inequality, they dream of nothing more than being inherently superior to others, with no effort or accountability present. And as any universal framework would dispel that, it is therefore to be shunned and avoided at all costs.

    1. Oh, exactly. The Progressive Left is simply one more in a long line of self-nominated elites. A line stretching back as far as recorded history goes. They aren’t new. They aren’t special. They are no more Divinely Fated to run things than any other jumped up bunch of would-be Aristocracy, explicitly including the Planters of the Old South and the French twits who were dragged to the guillotine.

      Their particular excuse for ruling – Socialism – has been tried extensively, and generally produces economic stagnation, widespread misery, and – if allowed to run its course – the mass murder of scapegoats. And that last condition is interesting, because almost always the first class of scapegoats are the Leftwing Intellectual Twits who brought about the Socialism in the first place. Which tells me that any apparent difference in intelligence between today’s Progressives and the typical French Aristo Twit Ripe For The Guillotine is largely illusory.

      I have hopes that this current spasm of idiocy will run into a stone wall in 2020. Telling the electorate that they must give up cars, guns, and meat strikes me as a poor way to cadge votes. Blocking commuter traffic with annoying ninnies may get you on tv, but seems likely to lose commuter votes. The program the current batch of Democrat hopefuls have outlines may appeal to the most vocal segments of their base, but I doubt it appeals to much else.

      Of course they may have plans in place for a massive vote fraud. Given how their plans have been working out recently, I fully expect that to be a trainwreck, even without active opposition from Trump. And I think opposition from Trump is a given.

      If I’m wrong, things are going to get VERY messy. Messier than the streets of San Francisco, which is going some.

      Popcorn futures look better every month, for those of us precluded (by simple clumsiness) from assisting in the idjit roundup.

      1. Messier than the streets of San Francisco, which is going some.

        All things considered, blood is a lot harder to clean from city sidewalks than poop.

        So, yeah.

        1. And the runoff is still biologically contaminated.

          Had you read? Trump is at least talking about siccing the EPA on LA and SanFran because drug contaminated human feces and hypodermic needles are turning up in coastal water.

          Cue Progressive gibbering.

          1. On a related note, the new director of the EPA discovered that California has had a myriad noncompliance air quality zones. Their remediation plans have been uniformly awful, but have been getting ignored by the oh so progressive staffers at the EPA. (They don’t get rejected, just ignored.)

            The director says, nope, and told Cali to get proper plans submitted by, if memory serves, Oct 10. If they don’t come up with compliant plans, EPA will do to California what they’ve done to the rest of the country. (EPA has the authority to impose compliance plans if the state/region doesn’t do so. The article said there are something like 34 million people afflicted. Sanctions include loss of highway funds.)

            The Cali response is another one of those Trump is a big meanie…


            I really should ask $SPOUSE to pick up some popcorn for her next grocery trip.

      1. Hear, hear. I can write a whole treatise on the failings of a ton of sci-fi, fantasy, and young adult literature, derived precisely by writers unleashing their inner special snowflake, particularly when mixed with the Hero’s Journey framework. But that’s a tale for another day.

        * * *

        What’s even more annoying, the leftist mentality strikes both high and low. On the upper floors, we have the aforementioned elites, who consider themselves inherently anointed to rule, no checks and balances needed, no competition allowed.

        But on the bottom, we also have a sort of moralistic crab bucket situation, where anyone achieving success through personal effort is suspect by default, bombarded with the mandatory “privilege” spiel, and at best, automatically expected to “give back to the community”, lest they’re branded as racist, sexist or whatever buzzword is in vogue.

        And the reasoning is the same – for a none-too-small number of people, being on welfare, or staying in an unskilled or entry-level position for a decade, is actually a rather cushy proposition. Thus, the above stratification still works to their benefit – saying you’re underprivileged or outright oppressed is an easy excuse for lack of development.

        (Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods, the spiel is that anyone successful is some kind of crook – not entirely inaccurate, but I digress – so people style themselves as too honest and moral for that… while working under-the-table and dodging bus fare. Really, does anyone here have the whole “leave a used ticket for the next passenger” thing going on in their region?)

        All in all, the idea of one’s station in life being inherent and immutable has its fans on both the upper and lower echelons of society. And it’s toxic either way. Alas, as apparently even half a decade of communist rule hasn’t taught much my side of the wall any better, I reckon it’ll be a while longer before the western world gets a grip either.

        1. But on the bottom, we also have a sort of moralistic crab bucket situation
          … automatically expected to “give back to the community”

          Oh, THAT is why it was so freaking familiar and strangely disturbing!

          I don’t know what the normal term is– but the thing where folks go to study any long term poor area, and they discover that every time someone gets even a little ahead, everybody piles on to demand their “share” of whatever good stuff that person has!

          THAT is why the “giving back” thing when demanded makes me so incredibly angry.

          Most of the folks who talk about how they are giving back are, when you listen to them, are being non-braggy about charity.

          1. And why folks with gumption in such a location *leave* whenever given half a chance. It is also why Christian charities *work* and gov’t cash dumps *don’t.* Christians (in general) have skin in the game and funnel their efforts to places where they can actually help someone who needs a hand. We tend to let the freeloaders go last, because while they are able to help themselves, they choose not to.

            Charity does not mean you disconnect your brain when you open your wallet (or lend your effort).

            1. A note I’ve been fussing on is that the word “charity” is turning into a term of art– that is, there’s the religious jargon meaning, and the what-folks-use-it-as meaning. The way-folks-use-it is “giving stuff away,” and the jargon is Christian love. As in, Christ-like, real love, willing-the-best-for-the-other.

              1. *grin* Ain’t English grand? There is a bit of bleed over in the concepts. “Giving stuff away” can involve “from the goodness of your heart” rather than out of some sense of obligation, be it form within or without. And willing the best for a person can involve things in the short term that they really, truly, Do Not Want- but what will make their future selves far, far better as people (happier, too).

                Squirrel holes like that used to consume my mind for hours on end. Heck, they still do…

            2. Christian (or other private) charities are often held to higher standards of behavior than government bureaus. Further, while The Peter Principal and Parkinson’s Law operate in both, they operate on steroids in Government. Thus, money given to private charity MAY go to perpetuating the organization, but money given to a Government Bureaucracy will almost always go to that end, with anything spent on the poor being a secondary consideration.

            3. It’s interesting that one rarely sees the loud SJW Virtue Signalers actually doing actual hands on charity work.
              Sure, the wealthier ones will gladly take a six figure sinecure on the board of a charity that spends most of it’s money on running the charity, and some will do a carefully posed photo op. But most don’t actually do anything.

              1. I actually have a problem with that statement. Maybe it’s true now, but in my lifetime I’ve seen plenty of obnoxious SJWs who had done stints in the Peace Corps or working with inner city initiatives of one kind or another, and I would be unsurprised to learn that the pattern holds true now. They probably don’t do both at the same time of their lives, though. The vocal Progressive twit who ‘learned so much’ in the slums is a cliche.

                In fact, In BALSAMIC DREAMS, Joe Queenan’s bitterly funny takedown of the Baby Boom generation we both share (damnit), he comments that while we, the general public, may not believe every sacred shard of that particular SJW rap, we do know it.

                By heart.


                1. I will credit Chris Matthews with having served in the Peace Corps. Clearly it was only subsequently his head became fundamentally lodged.

                  1. ??? You’re not suggesting that when Barry and Michelle went to a soup kitchen for serving Thanksgiving dinner it was just a photo-op, are you? I am sure that if they were merely stopping in long enough to sling a little hash for the cameras the national press corps would have called them out on it!

                    I mean sure, Michelle was caught wearing $540 sneakers while doling out meals, but that is just because good foot care is so important.

              2. Hey! It”s from each according to their abilities! Some are natural drones, others have the capacity to be kapos. You wouldn’t want to waste a kapo doing inmate labor.

          2. That is, unfortunately, typical tribal behavior. Codified on some reservations with the phrase, “To be Indian, is to have no money.”

            Read about a case where a guy was trying to help out individuals on one reservation by helping them build up beef herds. He’d get them started, the heard would start increasing… he’d come back a few months later and the herd was gone.

            “What happened?”

            “Well, the relatives showed up, and they were hungry, and you can’t deny the elders when they demand a feast….”

            The only solution was to leave. Otherwise distant-to-the-nth degree relatives would keep showing up until everything was gone again – and the social pressure from everyone around would make your life hell if you tried to be “selfish”.

            1. We have a saying for that too – “You never know how many friends and relatives you have, until you win the lottery”.

              And yeah, the same goes for various renovation and development projects – you’d be amazed how quickly a housing project or playground can be dismantled and sold for scrap. So far, the only force for development that’s actually been effective, is the influence of foreign multi-million dollar corporations. A mall or hypermarket popping up is like a beacon of civilization, since the added private security is far less likely to ignore grand larceny and vandalism. Meanwhile, actually trying to improve people’s living standards the nice way, is doomed to failure the moment anyone has to change their daily routine, at least to the point of not literally crapping in the building hallway. All in all, it’s basically your standard horse to water situation, only the horse also drops a deuce in the lake.

              1. “since the added private security is far less likely to ignore grand larceny and vandalism.”

                Well, until the mall management are hauled into court for “discrimination”, or some “community organizer” organizes a blockade of the entrances because “raaaaacism”, or the “fellas” realize that private security is a bunch of unarmed retirees who can be intimidated by threats of lawsuits or just one or two being mobbed in the parking lot and beaten to a pulp. At that point, ignoring it becomes lots easier.

                And no, you won’t hear much of anything about it in the local news, because all of those tactics work on their reporters….. who have been well-indoctrinated with the notion that crime is society’s or capitalism’s fault anyway, and the businesses can afford it….. Ptui!

                1. Well, until the mall management are hauled into court for “discrimination”, or some “community organizer” organizes a blockade of the entrances because “raaaaacism”…

                  That’s another hidden benefit of Eastern Europe – being strictly on the receiving end of colonialism and slavery, we’re practically immune to race baiting; and after all the fun times in the nineties, private security companies are still impervious to judicial scrutiny. Usually, it’s government workers – from paramedics to tram ticket conductors – who get harassed and assaulted for just doing their jobs, and the only reason papers rarely report it is because it’s a daily occurrence, too frequent to be news.

                    1. Smack down the middle of the Balkans, in the land of milk and hon- er, yogurt and rose oil. Where Sly and JCVD still go to film every other year, and 80’s heavy metal lives on every summer. In short, greetings from Bulgaria!

          3. There’s also the phenomenon of Lefty Intellectual attacks on people who don’t ‘give back’ in Lefty approved ways…you know; ways that attack shiftlessness and thus might actually help.


        2. Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods, the spiel is that anyone successful is some kind of crook

          Your “neck of the woods” wouldn’t happen to be Silicon Valley, would it? Because that would be an interesting place to putsch push that attitude.

        3. I’m seeing some interestingly superversive stuff that on the surface dutifully pays the Woke Tax. EVERY authority is female.
          EVERY Tough soldier is gay. Children are ovarian cancer.
          And yet the plot payload may be smallgov limited by armed resistance of the notserfs!


    2. would mean unified and objective standards
      Interestingly, that’s what we used to have: a unified standard. Call it “Western Civilization” or “Judeo-Christian morality” or whatnot, but we all (except for a very small minority) agreed that was a good standard by which to set our watches. That “moral and educated people” that Adams mentioned.

      based on birth alone
      I disagree here. It’s why I insist they be labeled a technocracy, rather than an aristocracy. While birth is one characteristic, being from the right schools and part of the correct organizations and spouting the proper dogma is much more important. Especially the first one. (Though, yes, birth plays some part in entering those schools.)

      (Note there is a big difference between a technocracy and a meritocracy. One is based on knowing the right things, while the latter is based on being able to actually do.)

      1. I point out birth in reference to how every leftist excuses their behavior with a version of “baby, I was born this way”. They were born black, or female, or gay, or transgender, or obese, etc. Which is taken to mean that everything they do stems from these descriptors, rather than any sort of values or moral framework they’ve chosen. That’s what’s eroded in their psyche – the notion of taking responsibility for choices, rather than merely feeling imposed guilt over circumstances.

        Otherwise yeah, it’s pretty clear that touting the party-line plays a far greater role in social connections, since the liberal upper echelon is still comprised of old rich white guys. To contrast, anyone of the above groups who happens to be conservative, gets treated as a nigh-biblical traitor and silenced or unpersoned at every opportunity. It’s almost like what they were really “born” to be, is liberal, with no actual choice on the matter.

        1. “baby, I was born this way”
          Where “born this way” does not necessarily align with actual characteristics present at birth, but does somehow always align with what the person so asserting desires at the nonce.

          So saying this in actuality a way of saying “I WANT” with the hope of complete incontrovertibility.

          Living ones life in accordance with ones desires, as long as harming others is avoided, is not a problem, and in fact our current experiment explicitly talks about pursuit of happiness right there in the DOI – but it should be very clear that so doing is acting on ones own desires, not the external imposition of ineffable higher powers beyond mortal ken.

          And living ones life without regard for harm to others is manifestly not a goal that is in alignment with a stable society.

      2. The Leftist conceit that all cultures are equally valid is designed to keep people from making obvious comparisons. It started as a way of ducking the inconvenient but obvious fact that Communist countries were pestholes. Now they use it to keep people from the conclusion that Islam is for pinheads, or that post colonial Africa is clear evidence that Colonial Paternalism wasn’t that bad.

        The idea needs to be taken behind the barn and killed with an axe.

        1. The Leftist conceit that all cultures are equally valid is easily shown to be complete gibberish when you declare your White European Culture (or your Viking ancestors) means you are compelled to invade other cultures, seize their resources and educate their children.

          1. Worse than that, actually, imo.
            It’s inflicted with a tribal culture (which can’t turn into Great Place To Live, ever) which Communism exploits (and manages to turn even Nice Place into Worst Place To Live – always).

            So, they’re unable to fly because they’ve A) got no wings, and B) someone chained them to a boulder. Even if they unchain from the boulder, they’d have to grow wings to fly. And, even if they grew wings they couldn’t get very high because they’re chained to the boulder.

        2. I disagree with that last line.

          It needs to get the axe out in view of a large audience, with the explicit explanation that it’s crap that only idiots would believe.

  2. The Constitution is a living document only because it can be amended, otherwise it says what it says. Any politician or justice that says otherwise is breaking the compact with the people.

    1. But…but…but…if we have to either obey the Constitution and its Amendments, or Amend it according to set Process, then we aren’t the Lords of the Earth!

      1. Silly Huns. If it’s a living document they can just abort it. It’s only, what, 12,640 some-odd week post birth. At this point, what difference does it make?

        1. I think the Constitution identifies as a person, so the 14th Amendment gives it citizenship, and protects it with due process. 😛

  3. You know, I had actually stopped listening to what the Left says they want some years ago. That list of things does seem very complete though, to my peripheral recall of nattering I’ve read.

    The reason I stopped listening is that they never say what they actually want, because its too ugly. The situation they envision for us, whether they know it or not, is essentially North Korea. Where the rich and connected Party Members go on skiing holidays and live in villas, while the teeming masses of Workers live in barracks and eat boiled grass because the Great Five Year Plan didn’t work out this year.

    That’s why they want #1 and #4 so bad. They can’t have people jumping into their cars and leaving, and they can’t have them shooting back when they come to take the car away. Gun confiscation first, then car confiscation, then you get to eat bugs and live in a sewer pipe. If they don’t just kill you.

    Always remember: a car goes to the exact place you want, exactly when you want to go there. A train goes where SOMEONE ELSE wants it to go, on -their- schedule.

    1. I am more and more convinced that there is a psychological condition in Politicians in general and Democrat politicians especially, that amounts to being sexually excited by commuter light rail. I can’t think of any other reason why so many politician push it on the public. It almost never works. If there is a case in the last fifty years of a new CLR project meeting budget OR ridership projections, I haven’t heard of it.

      I’d call the condition’s sufferers Metrosexuals, but that’s already taken (when there was already a perfectly good word – dandy – for it).

      1. commuter light rail … almost never works
        I disagree. It seldom works where the community is too spread out. It works in dense cities (assuming you include things like subways in the overall question of “does it work?”), where you need to get from one side to another and can easily walk to and from the nodes on the network.

        That’s really the problem: the advocates see it working in one set of circumstances and generalize that to “It works!”

        Places it might work (if not hampered by corruption, environmental falderal, and more corruption) include: a town-to-military-base line if the base is a ways out (and the base has a compact enough main area); a tourist area that’s somewhat densely packed (from outlying areas where parking and driving aren’t a pain)*; a town-to-large-college-campus line.

        Note that all those require one or more places where folks can conveniently get to, then take the train somewhere convenient to walk around. Also note that nowhere did I say “all our problems will be solved!” by light rail, or any of the other panaceas currently touted by those who would rule us.

        (* Oh, we have light rail in one town here. It is lightly ridden. The one bit of light rail that might succeed – outlying areas to the beachfront – has consistently been voted down by the folks in the town with the beachfront. Go figure.)

        1. Actually, I will insist that my assertion is correct, because where it COULD work, it is kept from doing so by politicians who simply cannot leave well enough alone. Thus, in New York you have politics artificially constraining fares, and cascading failures of maintenance because the operators are robbing Peter toavoid charging Paul what is needed.

          Also, most of the systems that sorta-kinda work are older. New systems are underbid, and over-sanguine regarding ridership. Results tend to strongly resemble the DC Metro, aka Congress’ Toy Train Set.

          It appears to work in Japan. Japanese populations are unusually concentrated, and it is my understanding that the government mostly keeps its grubby paws off.

          And in some other places where it appears to work, the assertion that it DOES work comes from a government notorious for having tenuous contact with reality.

          1. DC Metro (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) as of three years ago had a 42% farebox recovery rate. That is, only 42% of costs are covered by fares. It lacks a dedicated, reliable funding source to subsidize the difference, but keeps getting grants and loans to build rail extensions. This only makes things worse, because the gap in actual dollars between cost to operate and the fares received grows. This is results in a shambolic maintenance situation, since money is always in short supply. If Congress keeps wanting to grow the tentacles of the beast, perhaps they should supply funds to keep it operating safely, or else forget about all these extensions.

            1. First rule of public works; Progressive City-Planning Politicians LOVE big construction projects, but HATE paying for maintenance.

              When I lived in the DC area, the Metro ran pretty well, so long as you didn’t count on the escalators to work. I had cause to spend time in DC about two years back, and they were having frequent electrical fires because they had skimped on maintenance AND overburdened the system.

              I gather things have kept going downhill since.

              1. The last I’d read and seen presentations on the subject, it was getting worse. In part because they’re still not getting enough maintenance dollars, in part because they keep adding extensions and core parts of the network are already at physical capacity and/or over design capacity, and they’re still extending. The new head of the agency seems to be insisting on safety over performance, though, figuring an inconvenienced commuter is better than a fried commuter, while beating the bushes for additional funding for maintenance.

                Unfortunately, the not paying enough for maintenance extends to our road, highways, and their bridges and tunnels, as well as to transit.

              2. Maintenance does not offer ribbon-cuttings and puts politicians at the mercy of union thuggery. While it also puts them on the receiving end of union campaign contributions, those contributions come with a wire around politician throats.

              3. And as long as you didn’t get on the Orange Line, heh, heh, heh. (At least that was what I was told when I was there – from ’05-’09.)

            2. I would suggest that farebox recovery rate is not entirely the correct metric here, any more than Batting Average is a comprehensive measure of offensive contribution in Baseball.

              The primary benefit of mass transit is the alleviation it provides for support and maintenance of road infrastructure. If a mass-transit system allows a city to get by with six-lane highways rather than ten-lanes, that is a significant savings. There is also the reduction of parking required, improvement of pollution measurements and similar costs. For a city with significant water barriers, such as New York, D.C., Philadelphia and others there is also the cost reduction in bridges and tunnels.

              While none of this makes me a proponent of mass transit, I suggest they constitute an argument for a city to consider the option.

              Although I think they should just be honest and make ridership free, entirely subsidized through taxes. Pretending it is one thing rather than another is simply bad for policy-making.

              1. Although I think they should just be honest and make ridership free, entirely subsidized through taxes. Pretending it is one thing rather than another is simply bad for policy-making.

                That– based off of the “buy homeless people a pass” — just results in the transit being used as mobile hotels, so it will increase the cost if you’re going to have someone making sure people actually get OFF at the end of the trip, which you must to to enable folks who would otherwise be driving to use the system.
                (we lived by a good bus system. Well, on paper. No way in hell was I going to go on it in daylight without Elf, much less at any time when it’s just me, the backpack and one or more small children. I could figure that out even BEFORE the videos of the assaults on the buses started circulating…..)

          2. Silicon Valley did a light rail system starting in the 1980s. Originally, it was called the Santa Clara County Area Transit (until people started snickering at the acronym), and the first leg ran from the bedroom neighborhoods, through downtown, then by the civic center (county/city admin, courts, jail and cop shop), then north to the industrial area. Ridership was decent from the south, hardly anybody getting off downtown, almost emptying at the civic center. About 10-30% of the peak riders went to the industrial area. At lunch time, some people would ride to downtown (the trains did a stately 10 mph through that stretch) for the restaurants. (All this around 1980-95)

            They were working an an E-W line for the industrial area when we left, as well as one going SW to other suburban towns.

            I took it for a couple years, largely because my employer was offering subsidized (50% off, I think) passes. It was costing me $2.00 a day for the commute, and with subsidy, it was $1.00 for the ride. The hidden cost was time; it always took an hour for the light rail (and an additional 40 minutes each way if I walked to/from the home station.) Absolute worst case for driving was an hour, with 30 minutes if I came in early or left late. Oh yeah, the schedule got lonely at night…

            When the subsidies ended, I want back to driving, or occasional bicycle. Being able to do errands was a major factor, with little additional cost.

              1. LTD locally. Only time I rode is because UofO it is part of your student fees whether you use it or not. Parking passes for campus are not cheap and are a parking spot hunting license at best. Plus there was a two hour morning and two hour afternoon direct to downtown, then downtown to campus. But outside of those hours … PIA doesn’t come close.

                1. Local school districts. 4J requires HS students to ride LTD. Bethel doesn’t. There was brief talk until those whose residents were east of 99 pointed out that HS students had to ride to park & ride on RR to transfer to go to park & ride somewhere, before they then transferred to get to either Willamette (main HS) or the alternative HS. This didn’t count the rural contingent that didn’t have a bus going through. A loud NO. Might have helped a tad that theses sections of the district has/had the higher per earning per household average (solid middle/upper middle income for southern Willamette valley, NOT SF or LA). Or the more involved parents. Pick one.

                2. “parking spot hunting license”

                  I must remember this term, even if I might no longer be anywhere near using such a thing. Thankfully, I now live way out in, or at least not too far from, Civilization.

                  1. At Flat State U we referred to it as “vulturing.” You circled around and around the parking lot five minutes after the class bell, waiting for something, anything, to move, then swooped in to grab the spot.

                    1. No permit required. Christmas, & other big grocery shopping days. When being followed after leaving door with purchase … “Parking Stalking”.

          3. I seem to recall the Paris metro being quite good – in 2001, anyway. Rather more akin to NYC’s in terms of cleanliness, though…

          4. Also, Japan has a system where you can get one card, put money on it, and transfer from bus to train line 1 to train line 2 back to bus. And you can also use the card at vending machines and stores located in the stations.

            Also also, Japan is very mountainous, and it is frequently easier to take the train through a mountain than try to walk around it.

        2. The one bit of light rail that might succeed – outlying areas to the beachfront – has consistently been voted down by the folks in the town with the beachfront. Go figure.

          It does rather confirm a suspicion I’ve had for a while. The residents of our local People’s Republic have consistently voted down any widening of the roads leading into town. They SAY that it’s because they don’t want any more cars, congestion, polluting of the environment, etc., and that what are really required are bike paths. I’ve long suspected that what they MEAN, however, is, “We don’t want any of THOSE kind of people coming to our prestine town. If you can’t afford to live here, you don’t belong here.”

          1. Which would be very self-critiquing, since the beachfront is what sustains this particular economy (that and the military).

        3. In my misspent youth, before I had the dubious privilege of supporting a vehicle, I relied heavily on forms of mass transit in one of the sprawliest cities in the US. As has been observed, it can work in places with a sufficiently high population density. Elsewhere, it has to be subsidized, and riders still pay a premium in time instead of cash outlay. No one wants to budget two hours for a bus trip (by the time bus schedules and slow travel due to frequent stops, and walking between bus stops are accounted for ) when one could drive the same distance in half an hour.

        4. We’ve got light rail right here. Most of the seats are full in mornings and afternoons, especially on the trains running to and from the Mexican border. They also go past the big Navy base.

          The border trains stop running at midnight, and start again at 6 AM. Don’t miss the last train from the border!

          After 40 years they’re finally talking about running some tracks from downtown San Diego to the airport. I think the cab drivers have been bribing the city council opposing it.

          I had to take public transit for about a 30-mile commute for two weeks. It took over three hours each way. Every morning I had to transfer from a southbound bus, to a northbound train, to an eastbound light rail. The eastbound train left the station about two minutes BEFORE the northbound train pulled in. I got to watch it go bye-bye from the train window EVERY FUCKING DAY and then wait half an hour for the next one. I’d catch the bus just before 6:00, get to work about 9:15, and the light rail trains stopped running at 4:30, so I couldn’t make a full 8-hour day. I got home a little before 10:00. I just know the schedules were made up by some ‘progressive’ twits because NO normal person could be that stupid.

          After my car was fixed, the trip took 40 minutes.

      2. You know, that makes sense. I’ve long made fun of the plan to have commuter rail come out to our town by 2040, not just because it only took them 6 years to build the transcontinental railroad but because by 2040 the demographics and population distribution will have completely changed and whatever problem the train was meant to solve may have gone the way of the dodo.

        However, if it’s merely a matter of those rail plans being the politician equivalent of porn, then suddenly it all comes together.

        1. In most cities that have a real demand for public transportation, the need would be better met switch busses. Bus routes are orders of magnitude more flexible than rail routes, so when the neighborhoods change it is easy to change where the busses go.

          Every Commuter Light Rail plan I have had cause to look at over the last three decades has included a heavy does of City Planning/Wishful Thinking and to the best of my knowledge, none of those pipe-dreams has panned out particularly well. But the Progressives LOVE them some Light Rail, and I think it’s because it gives them a framework on which to hang their (inevitably coercive) City Panning plans on.

          1. For years Huntsville AL got dinged in those best cities to live in surveys for its lack of mass transit. So the powers that be put busses in. The routes and schedules are designed specifically to service “those people” the ones too poor to afford their own vehicles. The system does not support students, either K-12 or college. Attempting to use it to commute to work is completely unfeasible. Two job families, really most of them these days, still require two working vehicles.
            Now something like ten years into the program the system has never broken even. But mission accomplished, the movers and shakers in town can point with pride at a mass transit system, one they would never be caught dead using themselves. But it sure did gain Huntsville a few points on those best city surveys.

            1. Nobody in their right mind should expect the average transit system in the US to break even. If an advocate for a transit system insists it will be self-supporting they’re likely delusional, or at least very ill informed. There’s a reason most commuter bus operators were subsidized by, or bought out by, government agencies in 60’s and 70’s. The series of railroad bankruptcies in the Northeast that led to Conrail are in part attributable to the massive cost of subsidizing commuter rail operations from dwindling freight profits until regional/state agencies took commuter rail over.

              Elsewhere in the world, with higher population densities and higher gas taxes, farebox recovery ratios (percent of operating costs covered by fares;anything under 100% means fares aren’t covering costs) are usually better than in the US, but the European systems don’t often exceed 80% and even in Japan two of the five major transit operators have ratios under 100%. (Note: Some may still turn a profit with a ratio under 100% because of ad revenue, concessions at stations, etc.)

              1. The impression I have of Japanese rail systems is that, yes, some are subsidized. The way graft works in Japan does not lend itself to screwing this up.the politicians know that certain cities need subsidized rail to work, and know there’s little to no profit in playing stupid games with it. The subsidies are within screaming distance of how much it would cost the State if the rail did not exist, the people are accustomed to public transport, and the system works at least as well as anything else in Japan.

                American Politicians look at this and get all excited. Never mind that Americans are not Japanese. Never mi d that the way graft works in America, the rail system would be bled constantly.

                    1. I think that was the tail end of “I am really frustrated, and therefore I will cut you down like a samurai, or blow you up, or disappear you.”

                      Also, a lot of them were probably done by union guys.

                    2. Before WWII, there was a lot of “government by assassination,” btw, and sometimes it happened to corporate types instead of to government guys. So that’s why I say it was the tail end.

                      The usual excuses were “they were corrupt” and “I love the Emperor more than you.”

              2. I know of one city that originally had a viable commuter railroad system. Chicago had 4 private lines that fed to the city center, and each of these had at least freight service, and at least three had long haul passenger service. This was in addition to the Chicago “El” which pretty much stayed in the city. I had a relative doing the suburb to west side ghetto commute in the ’60s, but new businesses were being built in far suburbs and existing businesses were finding good reasons to get the hell out. (See West-side ghetto) Hub and spoke systems don’t do well when too much of the traffic is on the rim.

                This caught TPTB by surprise, and the commuter system was pawned off to a government entity. No idea if it’s working well, nor how it’s dealing with the sprawl. Knowing what I do of the area, I assume it stinks.

                1. In many cases, commuter trains run by the regular railroads had turned sometime between WWI and WWII, but were continued because the service was sufficiently heavily patronized that regulators wouldn’t allow it to be discontinued, and the losses could be subsidized by profits from freight and long-haul passenger trains. After WWII, the new superhighways, and movement of many offices and industries to outlying areas not as well served by existing rail patterns, decreased commuter ridership somewhat. Even as these changes were taking place, the superhighway construction and relative regulatory environments made gave highway freight an increasing advantage over rail freight, decreasing the railroads’ freight projects. Moreover, jetliners started eating into the long-haul passenger traffic as well. Overall, this meant a decrease in profits with which to subsidize the increasing losses of commuter train operations.

          2. The fact that bus routes are orders of magnitude more flexible than rail-based transit is exactly why city planning types prefer rail. The inherent inflexibility reassures potential developers that where rail goes in, it will stay, so that they’re more likely to build higher-density, higher-value developments in proximity to a rail station. You see much less of that with a bus stop. Whether that’s a goal we should be allowing governmental officials to pursue is another discussion entirely.

            1. As an added bonus the stretched out (sorry about that) rail construction ruins business access and parking, thus driving lots of the businesses along that line out-of-business. So those connected potential developers get to buy the land along the rail at a discount.

                1. Based on what everyone here is saying, we’re talking differences, not sums. (Nobody said there would be no math, right?)

                2. I’d hardly label as slums places like Calgary’s 7th Avenue, Dallas’ Pacific Avenue, and Denver’s 16 Street, despite the fact they are effectively limited to use by pedestrians and transit vehicles

                  1. Think of any neighborhood you’ e ever seen with an elevated track, and elevated roadway, and limited ways across. Or even, in many cases, with easy ways across, but the noise and the shadow.

                    They tend to be, if not actual slums, then pretty hard scrabble neighborhoods.

                    And elevated roads were sooooo fashionable with the Planning weenies….just before people started to organize neighborhood opposition to grandiose efforts to drive through this and that rail/road/what-have-you.

                    1. When you said limited access, I thought you simply meant “transit vehicles run down the street but only stop at designated stations.” I will definitely agree that elevated highways and railways running down/above the street can be problematic, particularly the double-deck elevated highways that seemed particularly popular postwar.

                      But some of the older elevated railways don’t seem so bad for the areas around them. The Chicago Loop is hardly a slum, and the portion of the Bronx stretching north from Yankee Stadium seems to be thriving, even if it is sitting under the elevated. OTOH, much of the area around Philadelphia’s Market Street Elevated is pretty run down. On the gripping hand, parts of it are undergoing gentrification and redevelopment. (shrug)

                    2. The Loop isn’t a slum, but getting to it from other portions of Chicago are not for the faint hearted. I had occasion to go to the old Allied Radio on Western Avenue as a yute, and that area ranged from interesting to was that a stabbing?

                    3. I know not all of Chicago is, technically, a slum, but it’s mighty damn difficult for an outsider to see it as anything other. The only thing Chicago has going for it is that, in place, it can point to parts of Milwaukee. The reverse is also true.

                    4. Maybe this is a regional thing?

                      Because Washington/Oregon area, they’re usually better than the ones that have normal train tracks or highways through them. Not high demand, no, but that’s the noise– and the danger is lower.

              1. That can be a problem, but let’s not pretend it always happens, or that it is exclusive to putting in a light rail line. I’ve seen plenty of other infrastructure projects, like water & sewer line replacement, repaving, changes to intersections, etc. do the same thing – and some of the smarter light rail and streetcar projects have made a point of making sure they only have a few blocks messed up at a time, for limited times only.

              2. The real bonus mass transit offers for politicians is apparent from a little question:

                Imagine you’ve put a subway station at a particular fixed point.

                Imagine you’ve put a bus stop at a particular fixed point.

                Which option creates a situation encouraging a developer to invest in real estate and give your moronic son contribute to your campaign coffers? Clearly, the fixed, difficult to relocate subway station offers better return on the developer”s investment, guaranteeing traffic for retailers and offering an attractive enhancement for apartments/condos nearer to the placement.

          3. Also, to paraphrase the Instapundit (or maybe as a corollary to something he often says), politicians like light rail because it provides sufficient opportunities for graft.

          4. The biggest issue with using buses is finding bus drivers who are competent to drive a smartcar, much less a bus, who will put up with the stupid reindeer games. (even for the pay they usually offer)

            Generally, folks would rather take a trucking job.

            1. The next biggest problem with buses is that in most places they get stuck in the same darn traffic as a zillion cars, and most efforts to get around that usually screw things up for other traffic.

              1. Yeah, which means you have to make sure the bus ride is a cheaper and more pleasant way to be stuck in traffic. Means it has to be more RELIABLE, too.

            2. Once upon a time I had reason to travel from $HOOTERVILLE to Huntsville, AL. Once, I diverted to Kansas City, (MO. Evidently Kansas is such that even KC is trying escape to MO… no idea about Larry or Curly…) to pick up a couple fellows. One was a city bus driver. I was perhaps too pleased by his eventual remark that he wished everyone drove as I did. All I did was keep to traffice speed or speed limit, signal lane changes, and keep to the right lane as much as I could. Evidently simply Doing It Right is rare. Humans, really.

              1. *two thumbs up* If he noticed, he’s one of the good ones.

                My mom was a bus driver for decades, so I learned a lot about traffic laws and physics, and folks who don’t appear to recognize either.

          5. when the neighborhoods change
            Which is why it works better if you can build it to “downtown” or “the beach” or a university – all things that don’t shift too awful much (unless you’re in a city run like Detroit, or a beach like the Outer Banks). Anchoring the other ends of that network should never be tied to neighborhoods, but rather to areas (allowing for coverage).

      3. “Light Rail will totes work once cars are banned” is the current “hold my beer” to “the Dems simply can’t go full-open-kimono on their deepest desires”.

    2. I wonder if the proponents of eating insects have any clue what edible insects eat. Or how much cropland would have to be given over to feeding said insects, not to mention to being harvested solely for seed, given that insects in such numbers usually leave you with bare ground and no crop.

      Of course, they have no clue about cropland to start with… given something like 95% of all arable land is already under cultivation (crops being far more profitable than livestock, but vastly more constrained in where they can grow), and that half of all fertilizer needs for said cropland still comes from animal manure. Some do know that eliminating animal agriculture would require that 6 out of every 7 people die of starvation.

      Then they bitch about how much water agriculture uses for those selfsame crops.

      Nope, they don’t love the Earth; they hate people.

      1. I vaguely remembered that there was something odd about the definition of “arable land,” so I went to look– it’s not what the phrase OBVIOUSLY means, it’s “land currently being used to grow stuff (including grazing) or temporarily fallow.”

        Which means that the 95% (or whatever) stat is “land that is worth farming that is currently being farmed,” rather than “land you could possibly grow anything on.”

        Your general point that it would require a freakin’ LOT more land become arable is basically right, though.

        1. Yeah, I vaguely recalled it at something like 1/6th of the nominally habitable surface of the Earth, and that’s about what their data shows. The initial limiting factor is water, followed by growing season. But the limiting factor on *crop production* is optimization and regular replacement of organic nitrogen (which is to say, animal-sourced fertilizer; or when we run short, sourced from a process involving lots of natural gas). Basically, without animal ag and/or fossil fuel use, you can’t have a crop above subsistence levels, and gradually declining at that. Which means everyone else dies.

          1. There’s also crop rotation– pea related items, mostly.

            Soy beans are a very easy option for corn, alfalfa is popular rotated with feed-grade wheat (I don’t know about food grade, I believe that uses better quality land to start with so the value is high enough to justify buying fertilizer) , and I know that there’s SOMETHING else that uses actual field-peas but danged if I can remember.

  4. a mandatory buyback …contravenes the 2nd amendment.
    It also contravenes the 5th, since the national gov’t can only expropriate your property “for public use”.
    It also arguably violates Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1’s prohibition against ex post facto laws, as it would make possession of a currently legal non-perishable/consumable item illegal and instantly transform loads of people into criminals.
    (It’s why you can still buy and trade machine guns – real ones – if you pay the tax and such. They could only constitutionally ban future actions, like importation and manufacture. They could not ban possession.)

    1. The anti-bumbstock regulation already violates Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1. And as far as I can tell, the poor man’s automatic weapon has only been used once in this country in the commission of a mass murder (Las Vegas.) And there’s a whole lot of bumbstocks that never got turned in, having vanished in “boating accidents” and similar situations. There have been a couple of folks caught with them and (wrongfully) prosecuted over the past year.

      1. If you own a thumb and a belt loop, you too own a bumpstock. I wonder how they plan to deal with that??

        1. The AR-15 system makes a rather cumbersome pistol as it requires a recoil buffer tube that projects several inches to the rear of the weapon. Still some folks own them and rather than leave the tube just out there they developed a device called a forearm brace that is intended to rest, ie brace, against the arm of the shooting hand.
          Oddly, it was discovered that the brace could also be used as an impromptu shoulder stock thus turning a handgun into a short barreled rifle, a firearm regulated under the 1934 NFA.
          For a period of time it was the position of the BATFE that an AR pistol was legal just so long as the shooter took care not to press the arm brace against their shoulder. Should they do so they were in violation of the SBR statute and subject to arrest.
          Eventually even the BATFE realized how ridiculous this ruling was and issued a new ruling that incidental use of the brace against one’s shoulder was no longer a violation.
          The key concept to take away from all this was that thousands of honest citizens went from legal to potentially felons then back to legal again all at the whim of regulations issued by a government agency with no actual laws ever being a party to the rulings.
          And I’ll note that bump stocks went from a perfectly legal accessory to essentially being classed as a forbidden machine gun in much the same fashion.

      2. hard to track those as they are not a “receiver” (The bit with the serial number) so they were uncontrolled for sales, and they got no effing way of knowing how many are out there, really.
        Also, simple to make yourself, in today’s world

    2. expropriate your property “for public use”.

      Since Kelo they’ve pretty well established that phrase is equivalent to “for the public benefit” or even “general welfare” and there’s no doubt in their minds that removing guns would meet those criteria.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if they simply (O probably ought not say this) reverted to the status quo ante the Revolution and permit our ownership of firearms with the simple requirement that they be stored in a public armory. Heck, they might even offer delivery: you hear a prowler in your living room, simply text the armory and they’ll messenger your firearm right over, in about forty-eight hours or — for a small fee to cover expediting — deliver it within the hour.

      1. “…deliver it within the hour.”
        59 minutes too late.
        “911? This is Tom Jones from Jones Armory. I’d like to report a murder. Yeah, I had a priority delivery to 700 South Franklin Street. I’m looking in the front door, which appears to have been forced open, and the owner’s body is on the floor in the front hall. Lot’s of blood and it doesn’t look like he’s breathing.”

  5. 51% of the country abrogating the basic rights of the other 49% is some kind of stable, tenable configuration for a country
    Can you say “Rwanda”? I knew you could.

    1. Never bring a machete to a gunfight.

      Besides machetes are for the yard maintenance staff, and knives and guns are both icky, being the source of existential cooties if the left touches them unless they are currently contractually employed in an approved studio TV or movie production.

      They think that 50.1% telling the popo to go do that thing will be all this takes, without regard to the any alternate distribution of the 49.9% in local, state and Federal police agency and HHS SWAT Team ranks.

  6. assuming, again, your goal is stability
    The stability of slavery. The stability of absolute power. It’s very achievable.
    Of course, there may be a lot INstability getting there.

    (That doesn’t sound like Lenin, at all, now, does it?)

      1. And grows ever more unstable as time goes on. When the regime finally sees the end coming nigh, the ovens and the firing squads get *busier.*

        As the saying goes (I think it was Iowahawk), you can vote your way *in* to Socialism. But you have to shoot your way *out.*

      1. guess what? It wasn’t the GOP.

        Welllllll … it wasn’t the GOP until Nixon’s nefarious Southern Strategy achieved the Great Party Switch and the GOP inherited all the onus of Jim Crow, Slavery and grits.

        1. If the Southern Strategy switched all the Racist D’s into R’s, why did Jimmah Carter get all the electoral votes of the South in 1976?

    1. A long and bloody war.
      Reconstruction, many aspects of which were purposely intended to punish the loosing side of that war.
      We modified our constitution specifically to ensure that former slaves would have all the same rights as any other citizens.
      The Federal government stepped in numerous times to stymie attempts by southern democrats to deny equal rights to minority citizens.
      And we installed and continue to this day affirmative action programs to give minorities a hand up with both education and employment.
      Apparently none of that seems to be enough, or just maybe it’s really a pack of race baiting hucksters trying to line their own pockets by fomenting division and conflict.

      1. “And we installed and continue to this day affirmative action programs to give minorities a hand up with both education and employment.
        Apparently none of that seems to be enough, or just maybe it’s really a pack of race baiting hucksters trying to line their own pockets by fomenting division and conflict.”

        Enough? Friend, the pogroms in place are there to *keep* little brown people in their place. The whole object is to keep all people who tan moderately dark or darker voting D. That is why darker pigmented folk are kept isolated and not allowed to stand up on their own two feet. Why there are special rules, scholarships, and the like. Why our criminals are set free to prey anew on the law abiding. Why unscrupulous politicians try and keep us poor, angry, and stupid.

        Because if we are free to rise or fall on our own efforts we will never need their “help” again. And why they want a new crop of little brown people to replace the disobedient ones that ran off the plantation to forge new lives with people tho supposedly are full of “hate.”

        Funny how if you look at them when they talk (scream), it ain’t folks on the right who look hateful.

      2. Keep in mind that after the War of Southern Secession it can be reasonably argued the South won Reconstruction.

        Sort of what happened following our military victory in Vietnam. Smart Progressives (but i contradict myself) might take a lesson from that.

  7. The Complete American Disassembly Manuel? Jose can you see? Doing the jobs Americans aren’t willing to do?

    Except that many of these Latin Americans, once they get settled in here, seem to be turning into defenders of America and (gasp!) Trump supporters.

    Coming into this country and becoming acculturated, even voting Republican?
    Stupid Latinx ingrates.

    1. After all, look at all their Leftist Overlords already did for them in their home country! Things were so good there they wanted to come all the way here, even illegally, to tell us how good it is.

    2. The lady who helps my parents with heavy cleaning a few times a year (as in, move the couches and clean there, move the fridge and clean behind it…). She and her husband are both legal immigrants, and they can’t abide the free-loaders and the politicians who encourage the grifters.

      1. Stands to reason. You bust your butt to do things the upright and legal way, and can be d*amn proud of yourself for the accomplishment with absolute justification. Then some Johnny-come-lately hops up and wants a free pass into the institution you spent blood, sweat, and years to enter in to? That’s some righteous indignation right there.

      2. She and her husband are both legal immigrants

        With good reason. if there were NO illegal undocumented immigrants similar to them she and her husband wouldn’t be constantly hassled to prove they are here legitimately, nor (it is likely) would they have to live in fear of violent neighbors endangering all they’ve built up.

        Legal immigrants tend to bear the greatest cost from the illegally here.

  8. It occurs to me that all manner of foolishness could have been averted if only the Constitution had mandated that ALL laws at every level — federal, state, local — require a 2/3rds vote to pass.

      1. Might I add that every dollar of increased budget would have an immediate and immutable inverse effect on their *own* income? And no supplementing with outside sources while in office, or for a minimum of seven years after holding any public office over the level of dog catcher.

      2. You might want to rethink that. Can’t you just see the Dems using that to remove the 2nd Amendment?

    1. There can be a point where making it too hard to pass legislation can bite you- witness the old Polish Parliament which could easily be shut down by one vote,

      1. David Weber’s Solarian League in his Honorverse suffers from that very condition.
        On the other hand, I’m not so sure I’d like to live under Pournelle’s Co-Dominium government; which to me seems to combine monarchy, military dictatorship, and fascism; occasionally benevolent, and sometimes not so.

  9. “I can hardly believe I’m having to write this— insect-based foods”

    Don’t be too quick to dismiss all insect-based food. I, personally, love to slather layer of bee-vomit on my morning biscuit.

      1. Considering the Left’s antipathy of plentiful, reliable energy sources, those mashed beetles would all have to be eaten raw. If I have to eat bugs, I at least insist they be fried and served hot! (and preferably beer-battered.)

          1. Recalls college steady girlfriend’s Halloween gift of chocolate covered bugs and a can of whale meat. I think I tried one of the bugs, (waste of indifferent chocolate) while a holiday guest (Screw U rented out our dorm rooms over Christmas break. Pain in the ass, since it wasn’t a semester break.) swiped the whale meat..

            OTOH, as a return gift I sent a head-shop pipe and an ounce of finest oregano/basil mix. One of her roommates got incredibly high on it.

            We broke up that spring.

        1. I’m having flashbacks to the Night Market in Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand. The Thai Wing Commander did tell me “The scorpions and spiders are just for the tourists.”

          (He did appreciate the bag of grasshoppers I brought in and put on the counter. All the Thais did. I only ate the one.)

        2. Let the leftists eat the listening devices. Preferably ones using selenium rectifiers somehow, somewhere. No, I’m not feeling nice just now. They can go play a rousing game of Let’s Lick the Light Socket, too.

      2. There is actually little to stop such a modest proposal. If those who propose switching to a mashed beetle diet are willing to research the production, obtain the financing, and market the product, and prove that it is more tasteful than any of the other umpteen thousand food products already on the market, they could be environmentally sound AND make lots of money. But that would take too much work. Apparently it’s easier and cheaper to get legislatures to attempt to rewrite the laws of physical and human nature.

          1. And which beetles would be the most economic to raise?
            Any bets on cockroaches? And the answer is….
            “Although considered disgusting in Western culture, cockroaches are eaten in many places around the world.[88][89] Whereas household pest cockroaches may carry bacteria and viruses, cockroaches bred under laboratory conditions can be used to prepare nutritious food.[90] In Mexico and Thailand, the heads and legs are removed, and the remainder may be boiled, sautéed, grilled, dried or diced.[88] In China, cockroaches have become popular as medicine and cockroach farming is rising with over 100 farms.[91] The cockroaches are fried twice in a wok of hot oil, which makes them crispy with soft innards that are like cottage cheese.[92][93] Fried cockroaches are ground and sold as pills for stomach, heart and liver diseases.[94] A cockroach recipe from Formosa (Taiwan) specifies salting and frying cockroaches after removing the head and entrails.[95] ” “Cockroach”,, 9/26/2019.

      3. Edible insects are quite the thing in a variety of other cultures.
        And being investigated here by a number of groups, everywhere from serious food scientists to whacky fringe cults.
        Andrew Zimmern’s Bizarre Foods show has covered this a number of times.
        As long as such things are open, above board, pass FDA restrictions, and above all else completely voluntary on the part of the consumers, I’ve got no problems with it.
        But that’s not how the left operates, do they now? They latch onto the latest “wondermus new thing!!!” and immediately demand that it be shoved down our throats by force of law, intimidation, and always with the willing support and collaboration of their media buddies.

        1. I have no issue with eating insect-based food, as long as it’s chicken. Those little feathered velociraptors do a number on all multilegged scritterers every place I’ve ever seen them, and they handily turn gooey crunchy into white meat and dark meat with good solid efficiency.

          1. And I thoroughly enjoy plant-based burgers, too!
            A cow (or buffalo) turns grass into tasty hamburgers quite handily, thank you very much!
            Eat beef, the original Wonderburger!

              1. Now my imagination is supplying bloody fang mouthed cows and goats. *shakes head*

                Oh where the mind goes when you aren’t watching it like a hawk…

    1. I’m fairly fond of large aquatic cockroaches myself- boiled in old bay with a side of clarified butter.

  10. No, you want to know ultimately why 2/3rds of both houses need to approve a law? Because 66 people against 33 have a much, much better chance of winning in a straight-up fight than 51 or 52 or 53 against 49, 48, or 47. Such a good chance, in fact, that the fight is unlikely to happen. And the constitution is drafted in such a way that people aren’t supposed to feel tempted to have a violent argument about things that are passed into it and then people have to live by. Because—assuming, again, your goal is stability— laws on what laws may be passed shouldn’t themselves be passed unless they are really, really popular. Barely tolerated is not enough.

    Very well said, and when stated so bluntly, it’s obvious.

    (What is the word for something that is completely obvious after it’s been said? Well, other than “worth saying.”)

    1. Whatever the word is, even if we have to make one up, I can see it getting used around here quite a bit.

      “Egads! Why didn’t *I* think of that?”

    2. We’re seeing one of the effects of the loss of Civics teaching. The moderns are falling into the trap of thinking that being in power means you can force people to do stuff. It doesn’t. Even people in all-seeing tyrannical dystopias pretty much live Rational Anarchically. They just do what they want, and ignore the prohibitions they don’t like.

  11. misguided attempt to force your beliefs on the entire American public, as if the rules for changing the constitution were just one more limitation whose reason and origin was a mystery to you.

    That is not practical when at least a quarter* of the American public is Deplorable (probably more have fallen to that since Trump’s ascension to the Throne Of god presidency. Surely you do not think anybody who is deplorable ought be allowed a voice in the management of our nation???

    Unless and until they admit their privilege and repent they should be stripped of all rights and made to serve as slaves in atonement for the past crimes of Racist Amerikkka — and give thanks for the leniency they’re granted as it is surely undeserved.

    *Hillary said only half the GOP were deplorable, although it is certain that she was being unduly generous in her estimate as it is more likely at least two-thirds but we’ll accept one half of one half as the marker laid down.

    1. Hillary called half deplorable because, as is very clear from the Democratic Party talking points, they think the other half is too dumb to think.

    2. On the subject of splitting hairs, she said that half of Trump’s supporters (which overlaps with but isn’t solely the GOP, thanks to NeverTrump) were deplorables, and that some of those were irredeemable.

      Personally, the “irredeemable” part worried (and still worries, even with H. Clinton effectively a has-been) me more. Setting aside what counts as “redemption”, someone with a history of being a vindictive, petty hag to anyone she feels has done her wrong (even if not directly, witness her defense of Bill, her meal ticket) should not have the power of the federal government at their disposal.

      1. I will concede a portion of Trump’s followers are likely irredeemable — a portion of anybody’s followers are likely to be irredeemable. It is probably not prudent to engage in speculation about the percentage of Hillary’s followers who are irredeemable except to say I am certain it is not zero.

        1. Well, yeah. “No cause is so pure it won’t attract fuggheads.”

          I just don’t think that she (or anyone following in her figurative footsteps) is going to be all that concerned about accurate aim for “irredeemable” if they’re given the levers of power. Historically speaking, people who authoritarian governments have decided aren’t redeemable or are otherwise without value have fared pretty poorly in general.

  12. But let’s say, entirely for the sake of argument, that you hadn’t heard.

    I have been reliably informed that what we have is a living Constitution, infinitely malleable under the kneading of the wise and enlightened judiciary — a process being effing destroyed by those horrible racist, sexist, homophobic, white-supremacist, bro-protecting, dogmatic Catholic Trump appointees.

    1. If your proposed judge has a history of ruling according the law as written instead of what you think it ought to be, what’s wrong with hoking up some false witnesses about something that happened decades ago and before he became a judge, or manufacturing a few wild and terrifying fantasies about how he is going to rule?

  13. I think that in your minds, 51% of the country abrogating the basic rights of the other 49% is some kind of stable, tenable configuration for a country.

    It is valid when the right fifty-one percent wins. When the wrong fifty-one percent seizes power it is invalid, normalizes hatred and immorality and threatens the continued existence of the planet. It is hard to believe that the difference is not obvious to you. Resistance is necessary and dissent the highest form of patriotism — when deplorable people are in charge. When enlightened leadership holds the reins of government all dissent and resistance are because they cannot handle a wise African-American or Strong Woman and thus need to be suppressed.

    1. One of the stupid things the Left has done is tried to make too large a % of America into the Enemy. They’ve built a pretty large and diverse tent to house those who are Deplorable and Bad, including a large part of their old blue collar base.

      1. *wry* On my more acerbic occasions (more than I’d like to admit), I’d say something on the order of,

        “*We* built the tent a good while back. A couple of centuries ya might say. With a few frills and additions (amendments) and a bit of maintenance (Reagan, etc). Even parties with tea. Once our newest friends got kicked out in the cold, well, it was just good manners to let them in, so long as they didn’t make too much ruckus.”

        Of course, being brought up a mite better than that, I won’t be saying any such thing of course. Just blessin’ their poor little hearts, them lefties, ayup, thas all I’m a doin’.


  14. … the goal of the drafters of the constitution was a stable society.

    Nonsense! They called for “a more perfect union” (it says it right there in that Constitution you’re so enamoured of) and we’re trying to make it more perfect. It is you deplorable lot preventing our perfect enlightened all-wise leadership from delivering paradise on Earth Gaea.

    You’re just being a h8tey-mach8t h8ter poopyhead doodypants.

  15. This follows one of my personal observations- a dictatorship needs the cooperation (if not active support) of a supermajority of it’s people.

    1. I disagree. Acquiescence out of fear keeps a dictatorship in power a long time. That is very different from cooperation or support.

      1. What was 20th century tyranny but a return to a previous political style in that country’s history? Stalin was just a return to Peter the Great; Mao one of the unifying emperors of old, and Hitler an attempt to resurrect Bismark/ Fredrick the Great.

        While they may fear their dictator, there is also a huge amount of admiration and respect for making their nation strong (and those people in the camps probably deserved it anyway).

        We’ve quoted Solzhenitsyn’s line about “how we burned in the camps” a fair amount, but why did the Russians meekly go along with the purges, only to resist the Germans? And why did they go back to meek acquiescence after the war? Because they feared anarchy and chaos, and liked having that strong man in power.

        If fear was such a great motivator, Tyrannical governments would never become as unabashedly corrupt as they inevitably and always become. People should be terrified to go over and above the official channels to do what needs to be done.

        And note how quickly a dictatorship often will fall when the government becomes perceived as weak. Just ask Nicolai Ceausescu.

      2. However, it is possible that the Radical Left takes the crazy train far enough to push themselves into that magical 30-25% bracket where they become the Dangerous Obnoxious Minority that most right thinking people want to see suppressed.
        As our hostess has frequently pointed out, the real danger here is not that the Left takes over, but the reaction to the attempt.

  16. Quite beautifully and simply explained.
    Perhaps not QUITE simple enough for a Leftist, but still…

  17. It all makes perfect sense once you realize the Democrats are still trying to get their slaves back. Oh, and get back at those damnyankee Republicans for setting them free, and granting them citizenship.

    Of course, in most cases Massa didn’t whip the slaves himself; he made a few of them trusties or overseers to keep the rest in line. Sort of like Sharpton and Jackson today.

  18. Something that I’ve had this revelation about-

    The Democrats and the Left in general…they want to be aristocrats. More specifically, they want to be English aristocrats. I.e. the Upstairs, Downstairs/Downton Abbey kind of aristocrat. The noble, snooty, right (i.e. correct) kind. All sins hidden by a careful smile and a “it isn’t proper to talk about it” attitude.

    Which is strange, because they all seem to act like French aristocrats. Namely the ones that made the suggestion of “la guillotine!” to be a good one.

    (They don’t even have the integrity of German aristocrats. German aristos at least had some personal integrity and personal courage. Leftists? Nope.)

    1. Pretty much. It’s one of the things underlying the higher education bubble and admissions scandals.

          1. Ponder a magical world wherein all the mirrors of Leftists have that line etched thereon, at the top, “Laws are for the little people.” And/but at the bottom of the mirror: “The littlest person of all.”

    2. All sins hidden by a careful smile and a “it isn’t proper to talk about it” attitude.

      Which is strange, because they all seem to act like French aristocrats. Namely the ones that made the suggestion of “la guillotine!” to be a good one.

      Well, of course.
      Because that English attitude is a hell of a lot of hard work– it’s manners. You have to actually work at not sinning, and if you’re nasty, the rest of the folks will toss you out of the club, and you’re stuck with the folks you sinned against.

  19. Two quick ones – In those countries where bug-eating is fairly common, it’s BECAUSE the folks there don’t have any other options – like bacon or beef. (Unless of course you happen to be part of the ruling class of said country, of course.)
    Regarding the do-as-we-say, not-as-we-do crowd and their unholy plans; in the words of Mike Vanderboegh, “After the first, the rest are free.”… heh, heh, heh.

  20. Thank you for this.

    It needs to be said but it needs to be said simpler. There are people I know who would be willing to listen but could not follow your thread.

    1. War is politics by other means, quiaf?

      Civil Wars are a condition of domestic politics. (It may be more correct to say that peace is abnormal; therefore, there is a minimal level of political consensus that underlies the lack of a civil war. That political consensus must be constantly renewed by reconvincing people that political and legal processes are better than simply escalating to violence.)

      Civil Wars suck.

      ‘Working’ gun control, single payer healthcare, legally imposed green economy, car control, control of food type, hate speech laws, executive bureaucrat’s arbitrary removal of a president, UBI, slavery reparations, and uncontrolled immigration are leftwing wishlist items which are against the laws against what laws can be passed (The Constitition.)

      The laws against what laws can be passed have a process for being changed. That process requires majorities that do not exist in support of these items.

      Laws about what laws can be passed are seen as more important disputes by voters. Insufficiently popular changes to laws about laws are where you look to find the first edge of a hypothetical civil war.

      The word of the law and the fact of the law as practiced are different.

      51/49 is a majority that is thin, and could go either way in an actual fight. The specific requirement for changing the constitution set in the constitution require a much higher majority, because that bigger majority might be uneven enough to win a fight. That level of majority might be enough to persuade a minority to accept a change in the law about laws that the minority really hated. This type of persuasion is a practical requirement for a majority that is unchanged by whatever the legal requirement for the process is. The existing legal standard may actually be too low a majority for a really unpopular change.

      If the practice of the law about laws is to make changes at 51/49, how often do you think it will be sufficient in persuading to avoid civil war?

      Elaborating, frequency of civil war is an interesting topic. Every two or three generations is by far more frequent, more costly, than the level of peace which we Americans expect to have. Which you reach that frequency, it is easier to let them become more frequent than it is to make them less frequent. 51/49 probably has a much higher natural frequency of civil wars than that. Whatever the current practice causes the natural rate of civil wars to be, acting on the theory of finding the limit and going right up to it will increase the frequency of civil wars. That behavior is not immediately costly, because the cost is paid in civil war, and because increasing the frequency does not immediately cause civil war.

      1. For the TL:DR crowd:

        You can’t always get what you want.
        You can’t always get what you want.
        You can try sometime but the cost is blood.

        Never take a rock to a gun fight.

    2. Well, then you say it simpler. Complex subjects are hard to condense effectively. And if you don’t cover all escape routes all the recipients do is say “But what about?”

  21. Please convince me that insomnia’s mad intuition is wrong.

    Whereas the American people resist socialism, and whereas the do so because they have assets, socialism would benefit from them losing those assets or losing the value of them.

    There is a disturbing amount of sense in analyzing policies from this viewpoint, and the underlying theory is one the socialists would find credible even if it is wrong.

    The particular policy is energy savings. Mold growth is increased by heat, humidity, and moisture. A sufficiently moldy house is of less value, because causing illness works against the benefit of protecting from the health costs of environmental exposure. Savings in energy cost would be offset by an increased depreciation from faster mold growth rate.

    Please convince me this is not a deliberate attempt to covertly destroy America’s real estate equity. I will be easier to persuade when I get more sleep, or catch up on my sleep. I guess I will go work on that.

      1. Yeah. In light of day, having slept more and recovered sense, I was probably assuming too much numerate capacity for long term planning based on complex interactions.

      1. Which is discarding the cases of ‘has a lot, favors socialism’ and ‘has little, opposes socialism’, but those don’t fit their world view anyway.

        There is also the theory of immiseration within the socialist model of revolutions.

        1. Well, they’ve got those covered, though — “has a lot, favors socialism” is Woke and Virtuous, and “has little, opposes socialism” is “brainwashed and acting against interests.”

  22. Has anyone here read “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis? The populist president’s plan is pretty much identical to the outline here, however he includes the armed “civilian” corps that Obama proposed as well.
    Reading the book was an extended deja vu all over again.

    1. Common phrase for:

      * UofO
      * LCC
      * OS(U)
      * any of the HS, either district
      * downtown (shoppers don’t need permits but if you work downtown …)

    2. Read the book. Have the book. It was in a bookcase 2 feet away.

      If Huey had not been killed, the 36 democrat convention would have been interesting. With the depression still bad after 4 years…

      Someone needs to write the alternative history. “Huey and the second American revolution”.

Comments are closed.