Spit Out That Black Pill

For years now I’ve been a voice calling out in the wilderness, and honestly I thought I had no reach whatsoever and most of you thought I was insane.

What I’ve called, at times not very coherently because it took time to see the picture, and because I’m a depressive and subject to the same fears as the rest of you.

But on this day when America overcame a show trial against the right that underlies all rights (the right to self-defense IS the right to be free) I am not going to say I told you so, because this doesn’t hang on the verdict of A jury which these days is almost a toss of a coin. (Though let it stand that this jury did the right thing in the face of terror and credible threats. It ain’t nothing.)

It hangs rather on the tides of history. What I’ll call for lack of a better term the “blue model” (though the commie model also works or the government always knows best peasants model, or the technocrat (one word two lies) model or rule by experts or– They’re a continuum also a dazzle of obfuscation.) is dying. It’s dying as it’s lived: UGLY, mean and destructive.

Yes, the commies (for lack of a better term) have a plan. They always have plans. And the cult believes them. It is, btw, how they get sellouts: cowards are terrified of the “inevitable win” of communism. You however are not required to collaborate with their belief. Their plans are not more credible than the USSR’s endless “5 year” plans. And you don’t have to buy into them like the CIA did into those.

They’re a spent force. They’re done. It’s been clear they were done since election night 2016, if not earlier. Though it’s becoming more obvious as time goes on.

Doesn’t mean the war is over. As Bill Whittle (bless his name) puts it, most casualties happen after we know the war is won or lost. So be careful out there, and keep your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark.

Right now, they’re the Germans after knowing they’ve lost accelerating the final solution. They’re fatally wounded but not toothless.

HOWEVER let it be known in the end we win, they lose. We know it. They know it.

Don’t get sloppy, but fight with all you’ve got, from where you are, with everything you can. Because in the end individual freedom wins.

And I’m glad to see other people also crying into the wilderness. Feels less lonely.

I don’t know this first blog or his associations. I’ll note he’s wrong about “email caste”. There are sit-at-the-computer jobs, and the distinction I’d make is “does this job produce anything or simply try to herd people and respond to regulations?” because there are gradations.

For instance, when herded into humanities, I took languages, where there was a reality to learn, and also it was useful to an extent. And husband does real — vital, even — things with numbers and hard math. The fact it’s virtual doesn’t make it less vital to you and me and our future. And to an extent, even I produce things that either sell or don’t. My family either gets the money/help/goods from it or I’ve wasted my time. (This is much clearer now in indie, because no one else influences it.)

There is no “email caste” and most employees at “mind” jobs are not lefties. They might stay quiet because otherwise they’ll find themselves fired. But with the vaccine nonsense, that too is changing.

He’s fairly accurate on the rest.

The Decisive Battle – Malcom Kyeyune – Power & Politics (wordpress.com)

And next is the incomparable Bill Whittle (I’m a subscriber to his channel, but somehow end up only listening to the free stuff, because I lost my password and life is crazy) who TRUST me is not known for sunshine and rainbows forecasting. If he’s seeing this, you should be too.

Spit out the black pill. You KNOW PRECISELY where it’s been. Rinse your mouth.

Then come back and help us hoist the flag.

There’s hard fighting still to do, but we can do it. There are going to be times of horror and seeming hopelessness, but remember despair is a sin.

Be not afraid.

325 thoughts on “Spit Out That Black Pill

      1. Te Decisive Battle link was extremely informative.

        His WW II lead in clarified much for me. Frankly I, for at least 70 decades, could never understand Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack, it made no rational sense from my point of view. His explanation of jakuniku kyoshoku and Kantai Kessen cleared my decades long confusion.

        & yes, such provides an understanding of the ill plotted moves of today’s blathering class.

        None the less, as you often point out keep your importants and projectile pushers where you can find the quickly in the dark.

      2. I am probably going to lose my job. My home for a quarter century, where I’d hoped to bring my grandchildren (I’ve literally planted the trees for them).

        And I’ve been wierdly at peace, even happy and hopeful this month.

        Maybe it is just that I wake up and literally roll onto my knees to pray.

        But… And… 12 ordinary USAians in Blue country, under credible threat to their lives, and their children’s lives chose justice and truth.


        1. Please keep us up to date.

          “Maybe it is just that I wake up and literally roll onto my knees to pray.” That is a very good practice.

          Thanks for choosing justice and truth.

    1. I thought the media fixation on the one video and the time the jury was spending looking at it was very telling; while the media was trying to present the jury doing so as an indication that a conviction was coming, every sports fan knows that when anyone takes that long to look at a video reply, there is unquestionably reasonable doubt.

      1. I was involved in a jury case of a stabbing that happened on a remarkably clear parking lot video (of all things), and we re-watched that video MANY times in order to get the sequence of events down, and that was something like ten seconds of video. I’m not surprised they needed to watch it a lot.

    1. I am not in favor of a constitutional convention. I am in favor of two new amendments: one to set term limits and limits on the terms and amounts of retirement benefits paid to the political class, and the other to ensure that they are not exempt from any laws passed.

      1. While we’re at it, let’s put a check on the Supreme Court’s ability to interpret the Constitution. An appeal to the people, something more potent than a majority vote of Congress, but less difficult than a constitutional amendment, should do the job. I have in mind something like requiring a two thirds majority vote of states, to overturn a constitutional question which has been decided by the court.

        1. Jefferson was onto something when he said that setting up what became Madison v. Marbury (1803) was one of the worst mistakes he made. That’s where judicial review comes from, and how John Marshall came up with it . . . Wow.

          1. I think historically that’s not accurate. I have read the Federalist, and in one of the chapters, Alexander Hamilton spells out the role of the Supreme Court: when two laws are in conflict, a court has to decide which one has priority; and the court should give greater weight to the will of the whole people, expressed in ratification of the Constitution, than to the will of their representatives, expressed by a Congressional vote, and to the will of a supermajority than to that of a mere majority. So before the Constitution was even ratified, one of the Founders was saying explicitly that the Supreme Court had to invalidate acts of Congress that went against it.

            None of this was made up by John Marshall, and it seems to me that his verdict was simply spelling out the implications of what had already been said during the original debates on ratification.

            And yes, the Supreme Court has made some bad decisions. But abusus non tollit usum: It still needs those powers to do its job, even if it doesn’t always use them right.

            1. Plus Congress has the Constitutional ability to set the jurisdiction of the courts, both as to geography and to the matters it may address. If Congress really wanted to and was willing to take the heat, they’d simply include a non-reviewable clause into the law. Whether the Supreme Court would accept that is another matter.

              1. Regarding a “non-reviewable clause”, the Congress DID do that once ca. 1868. The SCOTUS decision is called McCardle; the SCOTUS “punted” stating “The Congress having removed the case from our appellate jurisdiction we decline to rule”. [In the post-bellum South Congress had set up military courts; McCardle was a Southern journalist jailed by one of these courts and his appeal to the SCOTUS threatened to blow up this military court system and conceivably lead to resumption of the Civil War. The Congress realized the danger and enacted over President Johnson’s veto legislation setting up a military appeals court and removing the military courts from the SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction.] Justice Clarence Thomas has said if the McCardle issue came before the Court today it would be decided differently.

            2. The core idea behind Common Law is that judges determine how the law applies to a specific case. That judges were finders of law would be obvious to any of the Founders. Since the law must be self-consistent (the same act cannot be both legal and illegal) and the Constitution declares itself the supreme law of the land, any legislation that contradicts the Constitution cannot be law, and judges are the people who would make the determination of whether or not, and to what extent, legislation contradicts the Constitution.

              1. In a 1907 speech Charles Evans Hughes stated “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is…” But judges are fallible humans as well, Should they have such unlimited power over the acts of the President, Congress, or the states as they have claimed and exercised? Hamilton, Madison, and company would be appalled.

                1. They don’t have unlimited power. For one thing they are somewhat constrained by the actual text.. plus Congress or the states can always amend the Constitution, and Congress could impeach judges.

                  1. Somewhat limited sometimes means no limits at all, What we have is judges reading umbras and penumbras from the text, and piling dubious precedent on top of dubious precedent, with a steady persistent trend toward more Federal authority. The founders intentionally made the process of Amending the constitution difficult. It should not require a Constitutional amendment to stop each and every case of judicial overreach. As for Congress impeaching judges, for what crime? Being wrong? Since the Supreme Court’s decisions tend to increase the authoruty of Congress, where’s the incentive?

                    1. Judges don’t have to commit a crime, the Constitution says they will hold their office during “Good behavior.”

                    2. I think the doctrine of Stare Decisis (sp?) is pernicious. I recall a not-too-recent SC justice confirmation hearing in which the candidate was asked if he would be bound by precedent by someone most likely looking to buttress abortion under Roe v. Wade. The answer, IMHO should have been something along the lines of ‘I will be bound by the Constitution, I will be guided by precedent’, or, (Mormon-like) ‘I will be bound by precedent, as it is correctly interpreted. Which precedent would you want me to apply in a racial discrimination case, Plessy v Ferguson or Brown v Board of Ed?)’.

                      I understand this could open up a can of dead and stinking worms, but sometimes those need to be brought to light. And it’s not just historical precedents that need to be revisited; recent travesties such as Kelo v New London could use some remediation.

                    3. Better to bring things to light where it doesn’t play into the Enemy’s hands; the only time someone answering that way in a confirmation hearing would be noted is when it gave the progs ammo or cover.

          2. Think about the 20th Maine on Little Round Top. Outnumbered, wounded, out of ammo, another rebel attack would seal their fate… so they fixed bayonets and charged. And won the day.

            Do not accept defeat at the hands of these knaves and cowards. Show them actual resistance and they will flee.

            1. After the battle they were moved to the center of the line where they thought it would be safer. The next day Picketts charge and the main effort came directly for the second Maines position. They held again…

        2. Oh definitely. Article III has to be seriously reconsidered. All judges are Gauleiters of a Class, but federal judges are the worst of the worst. Unaccountable, unremovable, etc. What about allowing some institution to vacate a Supreme Court decision. Maybe even federal Court of Appeals decisions. Not rewrite it, just cover it with white-out so that it doesn’t exist. By “institution” what about votes in the House and Senate with signature by the President? 2 branches overrule 1, and all this crap about the Supreme Court being the only branch “entrusted” with the Constitution is just that, crap. The kind of crap that has governors smirking as they say the First Amendment is “above my pay grade.”

          1. Federal judges can be removed. It doesn’t happen very often. But they can be impeached by Congress and removed from office. Alcee Hastings (who passed away earlier this year) was a sitting federal judge who was impeached by Congress after an FBI sting scooped him up in a corruption investigation.

            Amusingly, four years later, he successfully ran for the House of Representatives – the same body that had voted to serve articles of impeachment against him – and served in Congress for the rest of his life.

          2. Does anyone here know how the French legal system works? Point is France up to the Revolutionary Era was governed by what was called “The Ancient Law of France” which was similar in idea to the England Common Law and Equity with equally convoluted procedures run through Parlements which in Ancient Regime France were LAW courts and not legislatures. These Parlements resisted ANY reform of the French governmental system; especially the radical proposals of the Assembly of Notables convened in 1787. It was the Parlements’ resistance to attempts by Louis XVI’s government to enact (long story about how French government “worked” pre-1789; “fitfully” might be the best word) needed reforms that started what became the French Revolution.
            What quickly happened was that both the Ancient Law and the French court system were swept away–never to return. The restored Bourbons in 1814 made it quite clear they were KEEPING the Code Napoleon and the old Parlements and their obstruction were permanently gone. So, in today’s France, how much power over the government do the courts have? Anyone know?
            Since LAWFARE as it’s called is now endemic in the US I would not put it beyond our country to see the English Common Law and our law courts overthrown and replaced with something less “resistant”.

        3. >> “I have in mind something like requiring a two thirds majority vote of states, to overturn a constitutional question which has been decided by the court.”

          A while back I had a similar idea (partially inspired by Razorfist): If the legislatures of a supermajority of states – say, 60% or two-thirds – vote to overturn a SCOTUS ruling, then not only is it overturned but any justices who voted for it are immediately ejected from the bench and barred from government work for life. Give them a personal reason to FEAR trying to grow the fed beyond constitutional bounds.

      2. I’m in favor of eliminating the delegation of powers to make law to administrative agencies…99.9% of Federal “laws” were never voted on by Congress…

        1. I consider eliminating “regulations having the force of law” to be the single most important change.

          As for term limits, those need to be put on unelected executive bureaucrats rather than on the congresscritters. Bring back the Spoils System!

          More generally, instead of throwing in new amendments because they sound like good ideas, we should look at how Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and the other progressives broke the Constitution, and use that analysis as a guide to fixing it.

          1. Term limits on Congress will just give even more power to the un-elected mandarins who rule through administrative agency fiat. Its the administrative agencies that need to be vastly reduced in power and subjected to time limitations on how long people can remain at those agencies. The executive branch of government was never meant to have members of it who have the same lifetime appointments that Article 3 judges do.

            1. Actual convo with a 25 year DC veteran of the bureaucracy (paraphrased) “Those N00bs* think they can roll in and start changing things but we decide what goes in the bills”

              *Newly elected reps.

        2. That’s actually a rule, not a law. If you repeal the rule about giving deference to regulations made by agencies, it would go a long way. Note that many judges dislike the rule as well, because it ties their hands in court proceedings.

          1. But ronalddog and snelson and Reziac elsewhere in this thread assure us that They™ can easily swing the state legislatures of at least 3/4 of the states to do their bidding, so if we abolish the 16th that just means a permanent Democratic supermajority in the Senate.


            (The main reason for the 16th in the first place was that state legislatures were too easily captured by powerful interests against the wishes of the majority, and even worse by interests outside the state itself. I’m not altogether sure that direct election was the best remedy, but it was definitely a problem at the time.)

            1. Hold up, Snelson said they’re dumb enough to TRY to cheat, not that they’d succeed!

              Heck, even I must agree they’ve got a decent number who’d think they could do it, and would try.

              1. The potential for success was implicit in their argument that a Convention was too high a risk.

                1. No, because a Convention is the wrong tool for the job– I don’t think it’s a good idea, either.

                  A Convention is for changing things when there is overwhelming support for a change, not a magic wand to try to fix a problem that’s being punched out and only MIGHT have a simple majority of support.

                  Going in with that much uncertainty? That’s asking for a messy solution that will cause more trouble than it stops, exactly because there isn’t a unified agreement on What Should Happen Now.

                  They won’t get their wishlist– but it WILL just get us chaos.

                2. How messy is a convention, how messy are the alternatives?

                  Anything done formally, on paper, in a central way is exactly the stuff that they are most aware of being able to fraud, and most skilled at frauding.

                  And, something unusual that they fraud means another task of convincing the weakly persuaded that we are in the right of /that/ controversy/.

                  There is more than one alternative, we don’t know exactly how many alternatives we have, and very importantly we are not going to have agreement on how many alternatives we have.

                  So, there is the risk estimate of the convention, their opinions of the pluses and minuses of the alternatives, and their risk estimates of their alternatives.

                  Arguing implicit things about arguments to judge what people of thinking, right now, has a huge risk of being caught up in us being a little desperate to find answers, and often a bit stressed to think them out properly.

            2. If you want to think 2020 was an outlier, let alone legit, I’m not going to convince you otherwise. Meh.

              1. I don’t for one minute believe either of those propositions.

                However, 2020 was illegitimate at the margin. It was such an obvious outrage because the other side pushed that margin to a few percent more than usual.

                The US has been a “50-50 Nation” for decades, and most of our politics is played out between the 45-yard lines. The reason the Democrats are so far out over their skis right now (to mix sports metaphors) is because they cheated to get a first down and are now dancing around like they scored a goal and the game is over. It ain’t.

                  1. The most vocal? Less than 5%. According to research on Twatter of all things, and the most prolific political people therein, scaled up to the level of the country. Because not everyone in America is on Twatter, not everyone in America can vote and does so, etc.

                    If we’re looking at actively political, rather than default, I’d say 25% of the left is that, at best. With plenty of fudge factor. In actual votes (as opposed to the ones they count… multiple times over, if they have to), it varies. But the worst offenders are the urban centers that swing elections, and those, the fraud can reach legendary proportions, I do believe.

                    The US is not a 50/50 nation and hasn’t been as long as I’ve been alive. More like a 28/29/43 nation. Democrat/Republican/Independent (or swing voter, plus the folks that just don’t pay attention). Lately it has been going more like 24/38/38, with the massive amount of “found at 3am” votes plus all the little frauds that often are never even checked- the dead voters, the illegals, the ones that harvest nursing homes and suchlike. The numbers are WAGS, but I believe the spirit to be true. Democrats just aren’t that popular when people realize what they’re really doing. Thus the lies.

                  2. And yet even if they can’t fraud themselves to win in 2022 and 2024, the policies and programs that they are ramming through now will remain in place. If the Dems lose Congress in 2022, anything it passes to undo the communism program will be vetoed. If the Dems lose the Presidency in 2024 and Republicans still have Congress, they know, based on the failure to repeal Obamacare, that their communism program will still survive and won’t be undone by a Congress and White House controlled by Republicans.

                    This is a major reason why the federal government gets bigger and bigger and more and more leftist; Democrats have been doing this for decades and Republicans, once in power, don’t actually reverse what Democrats have done. I fully expect the RINOs will stop such an effort in its track again.

                    Reagan and Trump are the only two Presidents who tried, and Reagan had to work with the Democrats who had control of at least part of Congress. Trump was kneecapped by his own party in Congress who simply would not pass the necessary legislation to undone the Democratic “slow march to communism” program.

                1. I’ve always thought on most issues it’s more like a third for, a third against, and a third saying leave me the bleep alone.

                2. “However, 2020 was illegitimate at the margin.’

                  They’ve been fraudulent “at the margin” since 1960 when the GOPe allowed Chicago fraud to elect Kennedy. 2020 was no different in that regard. The difference is that President Trump fought back and by doing so exposed the biggest weakness in US election law: once the fraud has occurred and been arranged, there is no mechanism short of civil war to deprive the winner of their ill-gotten gains.

                  Examples of election shenanigans that should have resulted in the immediate disqualification of the winner include but are not limited to

                  — Barack Obama’s deliberate donation fraud in 2008 and 2012.
                  — Open voter intimidation in 2008; while charges were filed against the Black Panthers in question, they were dropped by the President who benefitted from them.
                  — The 2016 NH Senate race was decided by 1017 votes, and Hildebeeste got the NH electoral votes by under 3000. Meanwhile, 5000+ votes were cast by people who swore they had just moved in…. but didn’t get NH driver’s licenses as the law requires.
                  — Ballots already filled out delivered to defeat CA Republicans in Congress.
                  — Of course, various Democrats have been recorded describing just how these mechanisms work.

                  In all these cases, the shennanigans were obvious…. but the stolen offices were kept.

                  Then we come to 2020, where because Trump was willing to fight back the country was treated to the spectacle of election laws being changed wholesale in illegal ways…. and the courts all the way to SCOTUS using procedural arguments over standing and timing to avoid even looking at the evidence, allowing the FICUS.

                  Will it be easy for the fraud to happen again? Maybe not, although the 2020 precedent of the courts refusing to touch the evidence will certainly make it easier. Bottom line: if our voting system was in good enough shape to risk an Article V convention, we wouldn’t need to have one.

                  PS: I realize I’m late responding. What can I say; I don’t have the same amount of blog commenting time that others appear to.

                  Links in next comment, which will go to moderation.

                    1. I have literally seen a leftist wailing that Republican poll watchers might not be offset by independent ones in future elections.

      3. California introduced term limits at the state level several years ago (Jerry Brown was grandfathered in, so he could get an additional two terms), with IMHO, mixed results. While the congress critters and senators would be limited, staff would most likely not be, and they could get an immense amount of power. Unless, one forces time limits on staff…

        I like the Do-not-exempt clause.

        Yeah, I’d be afraid of what a fresh constitutional convention would result in. Given the circumstances, the sausage making would not only be ugly, but the result could be worse tyranny than we’re seeing from the constitution-ignoring PTB.

        1. I was a Californian until 2020. I used to think term limits were a good idea. But they didn’t do a damned bit of good in California; its legislators are every bit as bad and get away with horrible crap.

          1. Term limits sound like a good idea, but in practice merely transfer power to kingmakers and court eunuchs permanent staff and bureaucrats.

      4. You aren’t getting Congressional term limits without an Article V convention. You might find a few Congressmen who would be willing to sacrifice the career they spent years building, but you aren’t going to find the 2/3 of both houses necessary to send the amendment to the states. The only opportunity for that is for an outside body to act to limit Congress like Congress acted to limit the Presidency with the 22nd amendment.

        1. I have not heard a convincing rebuttal to something I heard from Rush. This was on the subject of congressional salaries and bennies. I’m paraphrasing her, but Rush said, in effect, that governance is (unfortunately) a necessary evil and very important to the lives of everybody. Do you want amateurs playing around with that? No. You want pros. Therefor, you want to encourage professionals. It’s up to the vigilance of the People to keep a check rein on the pros. Until fairly recently, recent generations have been pretty lax at this duty of citizenship. One hopes that things are changing in that regard.

          1. I’ve got to disagree with Rush here. We very much want amateurs playing around with governance, that will serve to keep the government as small and ineffective as possible. Of course, we need to ensure that the elected officials aren’t at a disadvantage with respect to the bureaucracy, a la Yes, Minister, so we need term limits for non-active duty government employees as well as requiring approval of elected officials for any substantive change.

          2. George Washington was an ‘amateur’. So were Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, Nathan Hale…

            1. George Washington first entered public office in 1749. He was the county surveyor for a couple of years before going into fighting and farming, then went into elected office in 1759-1774. (Virginia House of Burgesses) Was a delegate to the first Continental Congress (of course) in 1774, figure we’re pretty familiar with the gap between there and 1787, ending in his election in 1789.

              Warning, the link includes the sentence, apparently unironically, George Washington’s presidency was marked by a series of firsts.

              I vaguely remembered he was already know a stateman before that point, didn’t know it was quite THAT long of serving.
              Maybe folks wanting term limits could build something like “no more than 15 years, followed by at least 15 years out of office” on the assumption that even if he was leading the army, he wasn’t exactly doing political stuff?

              1. >> “Warning, the link includes the sentence, apparently unironically, George Washington’s presidency was marked by a series of firsts.”


                You don’t say.

                Tell us more, Aristotle.

    2. I have too many friends who are decent people and think the constitution needs to be redacted. I don’t know how other than “I TOLD YOU, SO DO IT” but….. they’re not snakes.

      1. I don’t think that the people who think the Constitution needs to be redone are snakes. I think that they’d end up welcoming scorpions into the group redoing it.

        And I would far rather see our Constitution examined closely and enforced–with prejudice in some cases, and extreme prejudice in others–than redone by the current crop of “experts.”

        1. Hollychism please watch the presentation. An Article V convention can be usurped by Congress allowing them to replace the ENTIRE Constitution by anything they want. That is what happened to the Articles of Confederation. The original Convention was to only AMEND the constitution but we got our current Constitution out of it. BEWARE!

          And yes Mark Levin is a lying snake….

          1. That would be my concern. That an Article V convention opens the whole Constitution to reversal change. No. Bad. No Biscuit. Better to have multiple amendments even if they modify prior ones that 3/4 states have to sign on to. Like the repeal of prohibition. This way suspect states like CA and NY can’t dominate based on population.

            1. Er, an Article V convention is merely a way of proposing amendments that bypasses Congress. And then 3/4 of the states need to approve, which, I’ll point out, has only happened 17 times in our history (excluding the original Bill of Rights).

              If the states are of a mind to throw out the Constitution and replace it entirely, an Article V Convention is irrelevant, because it would already be happening.

                1. Well, it’s a little hard to accept your argument when it’s right there in the text.

                  Article V
                  The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

                  Sure, the delegates from NY or CA might propose to scrap the whole thing and substitute a new one, but that would have to be approved by THIRTY-EIGHT states. Do you in a million years think that’s going to happen?

                  Spit out that black pill, to coin a phrase.

                  And again, if those leftist yahoos really did have enough public backing to trash the Constitution and substitute an entirely different one, they would already have the power to do it outside the Constitutional structure. Remember that the original Constitutional Convention took place outside the structure of the Articles of Confederation, which had no provision for amendment at all. The Convention succeeded because the Articles clearly weren’t working, and a majority favored replacing them. No such majority exists today.

                  1. To induce State Legislators to pass applications for a convention, COS and other groups have falsely assured them that Delegates can’t do anything except draft the amendment(s) specified in the State’s application; and have falsely assured them that State Legislatures will have control over the convention from start to finish.

                    In reliance on such false assurances, 27 States have applications on file with Congress asking Congress to call a convention to draft a “balanced budget” amendment; 15 States passed the COS application for a convention; 5 States passed George Soros’ Wolf-PAC application; & various States have passed other applications throughout the years.

                    But Congress has the power to count these applications however they want – Congress may aggregate them to get the 34 States needed to call a Convention.

                    If Congress calls a Convention, the Delegates will have the power to propose a new Constitution with its own new mode of ratification – COS’s “false assurances” to the contrary notwithstanding.

                    If you aren’t worried, read the proposed Constitutions listed above; & note that the Newstates Constitution is ratified by a national referendum (Art. XII, §1). Whoever controls the machines determines the outcome.

                    1. I don’t know who is right or wrong here. But I do recall that last time the idea of a Constitution Convention was bruited about in my hearing, I backtracked a couple of random enthusiasts, and tho I don’t recall who they were affiliated with, it was someone who is definitely Not Our Friends. That was my first clue that this was something to be leery of. It would not be honestly handled.

                    2. “If you aren’t worried, read the proposed Constitutions listed above; & note that the Newstates Constitution is ratified by a national referendum (Art. XII, §1). Whoever controls the machines determines the outcome.”

                      Then it’s not an amendment to the Constitution and therefore isn’t a valid outcome of a Article V convention. If they wanted to do that they’d have to first propose an amendment to allow ratification of amendments by popular referendum, get that ratified (good luck), and then propose their new constitution. That’s as likely to work as FICUS announcing that, by decree, all elections will be run by the FBI.

                  2. “Do you in a million years think that’s going to happen?”

                    So Joe Biden DID get 81 million honest votes…..

                    Reality is that they will fraud as needed and call us “insurrectionists”. They may not be able to make that stick…. but #teamheadsonpikes will be the only reason, and the pikes will have to be real ones.

                    1. Again, I’m not saying it will WORK, but are you actually claiming that these chuckleheads aren’t stupid and arrogant enough to try?

              1. Given the present level of election fraud… and snakes in every state house… do you really think if a Convention were called, the snakes couldn’t find a way to swing that 3/4ths majority of states?

                I consider that probably 70% of Biden’s votes were fraudulent, and it seems well within the realm of the possible.

                  1. Indeed. I know that we all look back on the 2020 election with a great deal of anger, but if They™ can really suborn every single state legislature and really manufacture 60 million votes, then … Sauron has the Ring and darkness will spread over Middle Earth forever, and nothing is to be done besides, die, submit, or flee.

                    Spit out that black pill.

                  2. Several elections of the past couple years were blatantly cheated right in front of G0d and everyone. We the People and our pointed sticks did not prevail. So I’m disinclined to risk letting Them have that magical chance to change the Constitution forever, even if those changes only last long enough to polish up their jackboots and enforce all the new programs set up by the Biden Bankruptcy Bullshit bill. (See below.)

                    And you can bet they’d ensure any new constitution was more vague and open to interpretation in their favor, and too many states would see only the advantage, not the curse. The clause that allowed formation of an unaccountable bureaucracy should by itself inform us that’s an unacceptable risk.

                    Now, amendments that curtail the regulatory state (ie. laws made by no legislature), and repeal certain previous amendments… that I could go for… in very plain language free of all ambiguity. Killing the regulatory state would probably do more to cull the power of Congress than anything else, because they would no longer have the ability to set up shadow legislation disguised as federal agencies and regulations, and would have to hang their schemes out in the air like the dirty laundry they are.

                    “You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered.”
                    — Lyndon B. Johnson, 36th President of the United States

                    Ironic, eh?

                    1. And again, if they had that magical power, they would be amending the Constitution out of all recognition right now.

                      There’s nothing magical about a Convention: it is a forum in which to propose amendments without the input of Congress, and that’s all.

                      It’s never been done because whenever there’s enough impetus for reform that the states might bypass them, Congress runs out in front of the marching crowd and passes an amendment.

                1. Forget fraud. I could see plenty of Gopes helping to rewrite stuff because then they have “changed the rules” and we just have to follow them. Shades of the “law abiding gun owner” dumpster fire.

                2. No. If they could then they wouldn’t have needed midnight ballots in Philadelphia and Atlanta.

                  They aren’t supermen. They aren’t even that competent.

          2. That’s simply wrong. The original Articles of Confederation didn’t have any mechanism for amendments, so the Constitutional Convention was already outside that structure. Furthermore, it was clear that the Articles simply didn’t work and that a new framework for the nation was required. An Article V convention can only propose amendments to the states in the same manner Congress can. Those amendments will have no effect unless the legislatures of 3/4 of the states ratify them. Congress doesn’t need to hijack an Article V convention, they already have the power to do everything such a convention can do.

        2. If we could get a group of men half as wise as the framers of the constitution, I’d be all for an article V update. But out of the current generation of political and judicial leaders? I don’t think so. There are, as you suggest, too many snakes, scorpions, and other assorted creatures of ill repute hidden in the underbrush.

          1. Then they propose a bunch of dumpster-fire amendments that go nowhere. No (great) harm, no foul.

        3. Let’s just fix what’s broke….the “necessary and proper” clause, the income tax, the excessive jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and the other problems mentioned here….

          1. Those are all excellent solutions. Now get them passed by Congress… oh wait. Congress is unlikely to vote to limit its own power, even if that power is just to sup at an endless gravy train of money and privilege.

            And that’s why a Convention of the states that bypasses Congress was written into the Constitution.

          2. Agreed. The Constitution is not so perfect it can’t be improved. Things on my laundry list:

            The federal government cannot force a state to pass laws or administrative rules, whether directly or by making disbursements dependent on the state passing rules or laws. (Overturns South Dakota v. Dole)

            The House of Representatives shall not have its membership fixed at any specific number. Rather, Representatives shall be allocated as multiples of the smallest state population. (Returns the House to its Constitutional intention of being where every citizen had equal representation, no matter what state they were from.)

            All Supreme Court Justices will serve one 18-year term, with terms staggered at two year intervals. (Every president now gets the same number of Court nominations, and only a 2+ year vice-president re-elected twice as president could nominate a majority of the Court. No more playing roulette on young blank slates or morbid death watches.)

            Commerce involving goods that do not cross state lines that displaces goods that would have crossed state lines does not come under the purview of the Commerce Clause.

            1. I’d like to explore the ramifications if the federal government were prohibited from disbursing funds to the states entirely.

      2. I’m allergic or something, and this five minutes I’m freaking out because of the after effects of the latest spray.

        Times now, people are stressed enough to freak about any simple thing, and think the freaking out is the center of gravity, and if addressed would fix everything. The danger juices are a bit confounding.

        Left is pretty much defined along lines of lock step dogma.

        Implying that the right is everyone who disagrees. Hence, will not necessarily agree with each other.

        There really are ideas or behaviors that cluster in a way that maps to American Right.

        We have seen that when we have credentialed ‘Rightness’ police, they often get coopted by the left, and used against us.

        It is right and proper for us to disagree on things. There very definitely are ‘right wingers’, somewhere, who are owed a reckoning for knowingly and willfully enabling this stuff. However, there are two failure modes. a) trying to give the scorpion a piggy back ride b) Screwing things up with purity spirals. Best trade off is being prepared to go down being the lone hold out, forming one’s own pinions about the utility of alleged ‘allies’, and never compromising.

      3. My faith holds that the Constitution was inspired by God; I’m not sure any revisions would improve on that.

        1. At least, it is a well tested design, proven to work okay in certain circumstances.

          I’m far from certain that the design wasn’t divinely inspired, or that years and years of implementations didn’t also have divine intervention helping things along here and there.

          Leave aside the general issue of how many of our intellectual enthusiasts, even the good ones, are excessively contaminated with Marxist thinking and feeling, in ways that are unfounded, incorrect, and heretical. How likely are we for a design process now to give us better results than what this known past design process gave us?

          This isn’t mechanics, where we have steadily improved our design tools over the period. It isn’t electronics either, where three guys put together a really good theoretical model in the late 19th century.

          Our available design tools are not better. They may in fact be worse, for all that we have made some theoretical progress in understanding why some of the design tools we have are terrible. Because we are mostly not intimately familiar with that theoretical progress, it is known to pockets in bits and pieces, many of them invented or reinvented by the specific people in question.

          And it seems pretty clear that our initial design results were luck, divine miracle, already having a functional culture to work as a template, and or some other circumstance. Which we cannot be sure are true here.

          The wider the scope of redesign, the greater the possibility of worse results. I have a huge punch list of grievances also, but Chesterton’s fence is not a less true observation simply because it looks like I may have such an opportunity.

          Basically, there’s an argument that it would be really shrewd to think and work locally on re-implementation, and to seek divine guidance while doing so.

          On the other hand, how much of this current matter is lack of buy in by all parties on the basic rules? A true renegotiation could force buy in. Gripping hand, we clearly cannot make an agreement with some of these people.

    3. I would add Article VIII to the Constitution:

      If any of the temporarily elected or appointed Officials charged with administering the Government and its Laws shall abuse their power, betray the Trust placed in them, and pervert their Offices, leading to violations of the Sovereign Rights of American Citizens, unequal Application of Laws, or conditions of Tyranny imposed in Our Nation, it shall be the Right, and the Duty, of the People to oppose such Tyrants by whatever means prove necessary.

      Add to the 10th Amendment:

      The Government shall neither induce nor coerce any private entity to abridge the Sovereign Rights of any Citizen as guaranteed under the Constitution and these Amendments.

      Eliminate the 16th Amendment, abolish the IRS, and insert provisions to prevent the federal government from ever imposing direct taxes on citizens. No more will money be extorted from the citizens of one state and given to another state, nor states be threatened with ‘loss’ of federal funding for opposing unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.

      Make Let states manage their own budgets. That way there’s a chance at least some of them won’t bury themselves so deep in debt our great-grandchildren will still be trying to dig their way out.
      Today, every child in America is born $89,000 in debt.

    4. I do not know Ronald what you think an Article V is. Here is the text of the constitution says

      The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate

      So the alternate method for proposing amendments is 2/3’s (33) of the states propose a convention. Should that occur then the convention can (under its own rules one presumes) propose amendments. However those amendments need ratification by 3/4 of the states (38) like any amendment that comes out of Congress. This is NOT like the original Constitutional convention that was convened to fix/replace the Articles of Confederation. It is limited by the current constitution (for example see the last clause of Article V) and is present as a way to work around a recalcitrant Congress. There are things that could use clarification (for example Birth right citizenship) or restoration (e.g repealing the 17th amendment) which Congress is unlikely to touch.

      Unfortunately I fear that the tendency of SJW/Tranzi types to do whatever they please would tend to negate any constitutional changes. They freely ignore it now as have those allegedly conservatives. Adding morer rules will likely not increase control/restraint.

      1. Exactly. Are we going to add an amendment that says, “and we really, really mean it this time!”

        (Most of) the Constitution is fine – as is. The problem is that it is not be followed. Amendments – regardless of the source – are not going to fix that.

        1. When the 27th amendment was adopted*, it prohibited any Congressional pay raise enacted by Congress from going into effect until after the next election (probably giving the electorate a chance to boot the beggars if they get too big for their britches. So the Congress enacted automatic pay raises unless Congress votes to forego them.

          * Over a year after the ratification, I mentioned the 27th Amendment in a conversation. A bystander, a teacher of civics at the local High school no less, piped up with, “There are only 26 amendments to the Constitution.” Of course this was in the Central Pacific, but still . . .

    5. Require that every bill’s sponsors read it out loud in its entirety before every vote in both House and Senate. That should put a stop to those 3,000 page door-stoppers and goat-chokers.

      The one thing we need more of from the government is LESS!
      Nobody has so little that some asshole doesn’t want to take it. And the government is full of assholes.

      1. Call it “The Princess Bride Rule”; any law not fully read aloud with full written copies also provided before any vote is taken shall not be deemed a valid law or act of Congress (i.e., if you didn’t say it, it didn’t happen”).

        1. The written copies must be provided 1 day per page of legislation before the vote.

          No, it doesn’t take a day to read a legislative page, but people have other things to do and there might be need to look up references or think through the implications.

        2. *Including* all references and definitions. Otherwise you get bills which are a long list of “paragraph xyz, add abc”, with no clear meaning unless you have the text of law xyz in front of you.

          1. Yup. Might not stop the abuses, but having to spend two weeks reading a bill out loud would at least slow them down.

      2. Better than Read the Bills is One Topic Per Bill. No more burying shit inside 500 pages of peripheral nonsense. And while I’m dreaming, one page per topic. If you can’t write your law that succinctly, you’re up to something.

        And absolutely no gut-and-amend.

        1. ^^ This! ^^

          I wish the Oregon Legislature was required to follow this. Any citizen initiative does. But the Legislature doesn’t.

        2. Nah, the abuse on that one is kicking out laws that are passed because they’re “determined” to be more than one topic.

          Say, a bill limiting vehicle registration fees to $35 a year gets hit because it’s covering cars AND trucks AND RVs AND…..

          1. “Annual registration fee for any motorized vehicle that operates on public roads shall be $35.”

            There. No exceptions. No second topic. Unless your court is corrupt enough to hear a case trying to tease apart “motorized vehicles”. If you want to drive your lawn tractor or your electric bike on the public roads, pay up.

            When I become dictator….

            1. Works if they’re not willing to play stupid; yours would be two subjects if interpreted to exclude additional fees. Because registration fees and road fees are different.
              (There’s been arguments that dumb made, and pretended to be accepted.)

              1. Eventually, someone will be willing to play stupid sooner or later. That’s just a part of human nature. Just as we have the impulse to do good, so exists the motivation for selfish things, too.

                The trick is to find ways for even the habitually selfish to be motivated to do the right thing. At least, that’s the way it has always been told to me. Politicians are not supposed to be angels. If it is less work and effort to do the right thing, the right thing will get done more often, however so slightly.

                The Founding Fathers recognized this, and tried to put safeguards in place to rein in the inevitable excesses of Man. They didn’t do a perfect job, because no one living today or then was perfect. But it was a lot better than what came before.

                There is no way to idiot-proof anything, we know this today. Try, and they just come up with a more improved idiot. *chuckle* So it was in the late eighteenth century. The rise of the regulatory deep state happened. The infringements on Constitutional amendments happened. Changes to election law, the creation of the IRS, the FBI, and so on. Many of those were supposed to be “temporary measures.” *spit*

                America today is not the racist, *-phobic, sexist, evil empire that certain parties would have you believe. They’d not be trying so hard to convince you if it was- you could see it for yourself, then.

                There will be no quick fixing the problems we *do* have. Those will take work. But at least we’re recognizing them *as* problems more publicly today, as opposed to ignored because one party or the other keeps using it as a weapon.

                …though I’d still like to see a President Trump or DeSantis say on day one,

                “Justify the existence of your department in three minutes or less. If you can’t do that to my satisfaction, it will cease to exist.” Going to be a coin toss between Dept. of Education, BATFE, FBI, IRS, etc…

        3. Take a close look at the Confederate States Constitution. They started with the U.S. Constitution, then made changes – most of which dealt with money.
          1. The Confederate President had a line-item veto.
          2. The Confederate Congress could not pass omnibus spending bills, a spending bill had to pertain to ONE department.
          3. The Confederate Congress could not use national funds on internal improvements (railroads, roads, etc.). The states were specifically allowed to organize compacts among themselves to do so.

            1. Not so much supported slavery. as were economically *stuck* with slavery, and the Northern states did everything in their power to ensure that the South could not progress from slavery to industrialization, because that was how those days dealt with potential competition. “Free the slaves” also meant “instantly bankrupt the South” and give them no chance to gracefully outgrow it (as was already happening, as much as they were allowed, because compared to powered machines, slaves were an economic dead end).

              Consider that what the coastal-elite states are doing today is much the same: flyover economies depend hugely on domestic production of food and energy, yet D.C. is doing everything in its power to choke off both.

    6. An Article Five convention proposes amendments. Those amendments still require ratification by three fifths of the States, same as Congressional drafted proposed amendments.

      The call for a convention under article 5 by the States cannot directly modify or amend anything. There is no Constitutional mechanism for a repeat of the 1787 Convention.

    7. Term limits are the lazy person’s attempt to outsource one’s duty as a citizen of the republic to maintain eternal vigilance. Worst of all, term limits advocates expect to outsource their responsibilities not to people knowledgeable in the history of officialdom’s misuses of State power but to little pieces of paper. That’s surely one weird trick!

      California has had term limits on its elected state legislators and state executives for a third of a century. How’s that been working out for the Golden State? Weirdly, those who mock California the most in these internet echo chambers are the people who have the most faith that term limits will have good results. Real world experience proves the term limits fan club to be wrong, wrong, and wrong.

    8. The John Adams quote is still relevant here – “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

      This applies to the exercise of Article 5 as well as the rest. The folks on the other side from us Usains today don’t fit that quote, and, until the differences are settled, attempting to use the Constitution’s existing mechanisms to update it are quite useless. And I believe that despite the Rittenhouse verdict there is small likelihood we will settle them without referring to the fourth box.

    1. There actually ARE genetically engineered cats that glow in the dark, for those who didn’t know. Apparently they were made to study feline AIDS.

      Interestingly, dark fur can hide the glow, leaving only the claws visible in the dark. See the bottom half of this:

      I wouldn’t be surprised to see something like that in a D&D Monster Manual. In fact, it makes me think of an intellect devourer with everything but the claws made invisible.

      1. I want! I want!

        Really tired of shuffling slowly down a dark hallway in the middle of the night to avoid stepping on a cat. That or leave the hall light on 24/7.

  1. The most horrifying part of that video is about two minutes from the end — MaligNancy’s plan to infest Florida when finally booted out of Congress. AARRRGHH!! DeSantis needs to get a referendum on next year’s ballot:

    [ ] Should NecroNancy be allowed into the State of Florida?

    I’m guessing that one would go about 98% NO — and most of the YES votes would come from various graveyards.
    My grandpa voted Republican until the day he died — but he’s been voting Democrat ever since.

  2. An awful lot of left leaning people have had to reevaluate their views as they compared what media told them to what actually happened. It’s been fascinating.

    I hope Rittenhouse sues the pants off the media, the politicians, and the DA. Hit them where it hurts them. For us, remember Captain Boycott and enjoy their tears.

    Brandonum ilicet.

    1. That would hit them where it hurts US. They would pay off the judgements with OUR tax money.

      Politicians and bureaucrats need to be held personally accountable for their gross incompetence and malfeasance, or they will never be deterred from perpetrating abuses.
      Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

    2. I hope that any settlement requires the media to run a quarter-page ad in the A section or 1 minute per hour detailing exactly how they lied. Hit them in their credibility (and their ad revenue).

  3. Good news. Dodged one trigger today.

    Kyle Rittenhouse found innocent on all charges.

    His lawyer is now providing question/answer interview (at least on Fox News).

  4. The “email caste” thing looks like pretty standard framing by someone who is greatly lacking in information about a broad and complicated field, but doesn’t let that stop them…


    Oh, I just identified why it sounded so familiar.

    It sounds like the guys who treated the office secretary as a Mortal Enemy who didn’t do anything, because it was “just paperwork.”

    That nothing else worked without that paperwork somehow didn’t matter, each individual instance would be argued away….

    1. There is a line there, though. One side is the one who is doing paperwork that necessarily comes with job. Travel forms, supply orders, etc. The second is paperwork solely to expand their job. See HR or a good chunk of the business management.

      But the argument that the culture workers, the ngo, the Ed.d, they all have skills that won’t shut society down if they disappear. Truckers, mechanics, engineers, doctors, etc will be immediately missed while the folks that do busy paper won’t. It’s a shorthand, tossing engineers, it techs, and others in with the deadweight that does nothing except perpetuate themselves, who are extremely influential in govt. Think potatohead in boxers pontificating on China news network

      1. It’s a shorthand that ignores that the bulk of that paperwork isn’t busy-work or just to expand the labor.

        Paperwork is communication– ignoring it is like the soldier who thinks only those firing bullets are worth considering in war, then turns around and is upset when his supplies don’t show up.

        Look at what happens when the paperwork system goes down, and no it’s not because those evil paper-pushers are preventing the shipments from getting where they are supposed to go.

        1. If I could say, buy part xyz and they went and did it that would be one thing. When I need to create new engineering to authorize it (in addition to the definition engineering), write the detailed parts list in excel, and do everything short of filling in the rfq for them it becomes a case of why are you making me spend this time. You spend a dollar to save a dime.

          You got a bird on the line, this part is required, order it becomes going thru a half dozen groups and managers, getting held up because someone is out and still get the wrong part two weeks late to the line. It’s not necessarily the fault of those pushing the paper as it is those that build and define processes. But all that should be needed on the front side should be the requirements, the money, and need date. Instead there is a month-long process where a rote process is followed, it breaks down, and engineering has to be involved at every step.

          1. When I need to create new engineering to authorize it (in addition to the definition engineering), write the detailed parts list in excel, and do everything short of filling in the rfq-

            You realize this makes YOU one of the email class?

            1. Yes I do. I’m a cost. I’m not the mechanic that realizes money by putting wrench to metal. In many cases i should be redundant for anything existing. But because we get these hoops we add heads to deal with it all.

              I much prefer designing, defining and drawing new things (which is where I add value) but I’ve ended up as a glorified clerk many times. There’s a reason for the $500 toilet seat, and it’s not just stupid budget rules

              1. A cost, sure, the same way that actually having the supplies needed for any other production is a cost.

                They don’t just materialize from thin air– nor does the money to buy them, or the expertise to store them, or any of the other “just paperwork” management required for anything that can’t be done entirely by one person.

                I’ve been the poor SOB stuck cleaning up after someone decided that paperwork was BS, and they’d “just do the job.”
                Worked just as long as they could coast along on the labor already done.

      1. :nods:
        The person who may not know much of anything about anything…. directly. But knows where to go to get the information, who to contact to get more information, where to look to find out where something was PUT when it’s not used every day, where the instruction manual is, where the steps for maintenance that MUST be done are….

        Maintenance was a lot of it where I worked. Lots of stuff that had to be done once a year, and you can’t just kind of guess how it was to be done. And a lot of it involved making sure all the other ducks were lined up….

        1. “Two people can make or destroy your career: the departmental secretary, and your archivist.” To which I say amen, and amen, and AAAAaaaaaaaay-men.

      2. Puts me in mind of a comment by G. Gordon Liddy. When he came to Washington, he was advised to secure the services of the oldest secretary available. Not a decorative young thing, but an old grandmother. Because they knew how to get things done…and spiked any suspicions about improper relationships.

        He claimed it was the best piece of advice he ever got.

      3. Many, many years ago, when I started working at a Great Big Defense Contractor, my dad (who had worked there 30 years at that point) told me that no matter what else I did, I should never piss off two groups of people; secretaries and security personnel. It was good advice. I could always get needed information from the secretaries (now admins), and security always worked with me. In fact, when I retired (I was accessed to over 50 Special Access Programs from the DoD and other 3 letter agencies), the head of Special Access Programs gave me a half dozen blank forms, told me she’d copy and fill them out and then as a debrief said “don’t ever talk about any of this”. A formal debrief (which I was dreading) would have taken two – three days.

      4. Yep. I was mentioning the intern who didn’t have “career conditional,” status dissing the division chief’s secretary. Within a week she was packing up her desk. Which was scary, because as she was saying, in a soft, reasonable voice, “Oh no, I have no hard feelings. I understand, it’s just one of those things,” she was ripping drawers open, slamming them shut and generally giving the impression that Ms. Hand Grenade was no longer our friend.
        (I’d had encounters with her. She had, as they say now, “issues.”)

      5. Right the secretary/office assistant/whatever may not officially have much power. But if you need to get something done and they’re on your side things happen MUCH faster…

    2. No, it is that the “process people” have less baked-in failure-awareness signals than “plane crashes”, ” crop fails” “power goes out people.”

      And that the good they *can* do in preventing the same is usually the result of thwarting what some other maliciously incompetent Laptop Caste person set up, paper-work-wise. Which means even as their grateful engineers, cowhands, and lineworkers buy said process-czars chocolate, they are still filled with an abiding resentment for the *caste*

      In the end, it boils down to who people can do *without* more? And why do the most critical men get the most despite and the most useless the most piwer over them? (My guess: union corruption, but IDK.)

      1. Most of the failure states I was thinking of are plane crashes, caused because the Men Of Action decided that paperwork was nonsense to be avoided as much as possible.
        (Very bad sample in me– I’ve got not just an Avionics background, but the Navy actively teaches aaaaaallllll the things that go wrong. You’d have to ask TXRed if that even carries to civilian avionics.)

        One of the biggest single-incident deaths in Iraq was because their ride didn’t know the actual altitude. That level of accuracy matters when you’re going low over the desert.

        A similar attitude was implicated, thought couldn’t be as directly traced, in the death aboard our ship where a pipe ruptured– and all the pressure gauges that could have let someone know had not been tested, because that’s just paperwork. The calibration shop had no record of the gauges, and the engineering calibration technician didn’t exist.

        1. Or the guy doesn’t have the material the manual tells him to use, so he substitutes. Sometimes that’s fine. But you install a 50-60 pound antenna head with spikes on top of a fiberglass pole, bad things WILL happen. (Falling spike, meet body).

        2. We don’t get allllllll the things that can go wrong (officially).* We get a lot of the “this is what went wrong, this is what the result was, this is why you don’t do that.”

          *Unofficially, civilian aviation is 20% formal learning and 80% oral histories and “So-and-so ignored that light. She managed to land in a field, but we had to remove and replace everything aft of the propeller. Yeah, we ate a lot of steak that month.” [not really, but pilots grouse about mechanics charging too much, and mechanics grouse about pilots who balk at paying for parts and labor. It’s sort of a religious ritual by this point.]

  5. OH.

    It had escaped me that “tinkzorg.com” was Malcolm Kyeyune. Yeah, I’ve referenced him before, and I like him. Like I said, he doesn’t always “get” Americans, but he does a lot better than most Euros.

    For his “email class” I’m just reading that as a word variation on “laptop class”, “the protected”, “the meritocracy”, “city class”, “Ruling Class”, “New Class”, etc. etc. etc. Not that everyone who uses email in their job is a lefty, or works from home, or even works in the bureaucracy.

  6. Truth is such a boost to my spirit, I can’t even begin to tell you. Bigly!
    I haven’t thought about Bill in years and this video reminded me why I need him regularly.

    I’m also reminded of an audio of War of the Worlds that came out when I was in college (82 – 85). Richard Burton narrated. There is a scene where humanity is beaten, they’re running to the Channel, getting on what boats they can, even as the aliens destroy them one by one. There’s a boat, limping away, that suddenly turns back and runs full throttle toward the shore, toward the enemy, guns blazing. Today feels like that day, at least for me.

    1. Jeff Wayne’s Musical Version Of The War Of The Worlds, 1978. I’ve got both the vinyl double album, and the 2-DVD set.

      Also featuring Justin Hayward of the Moody Blues (‘Forever Autumn’), Phil Lynott of Thin Lizzy with Julie Covington (‘The Spirit Of Man’), David Essex (‘The Artilleryman And The Fighting Machine’) and Chris Thompson of Manfred Mann’s Earth Band.

      A few years later, Mannheim Steamroller’s Fresh Aire V made just as big an impression on me.

      1. Absolutely love that musical. In one of the places I lived, there was a rock station, which mainly played fantasy rock.

        Also, love the thematic album you base your user name on. 😉

        1. Imaginos is one amazing album. Except, I don’t care for that Astronomy remix. They got it perfect on Secret Treaties, and you don’t mess with perfect!

    2. Thunderchild

      In the original novel, she took out two, maybe three tri-pods, and spooked the others long enough for additional warships to arrive.

      The Martians stayed out of the water after that.

    3. And then there’s the real life version:

      “Faced with an enemy whose gun turrets weigh more than the entire ship, Johnston decides running is boring.”

  7. Let us devoutly hope that this is just another sign that the preferences they are cascading and Team #headsonpikes can stand down momentarily with just an on duty watch and not a full on alert regiment.

    Meanwhile, I still have my clothes and weapons where I can find them in the dark.

      1. I would be darkly amused if Rittenhouse’s acquittal enrages the left enough to accidentally spark a wider conflagration.

          1. Actually, yes, I would. I can’t explain why, but it doesn’t feel quite “there” yet. I wish I could explain better, but that’s the best that I can do.

            Now if some event were to spark it, this is about as good of a trigger as we could want. There’s a lot of sound and fury at the top. But people on both sides who become acquainted with the facts have been almost unanimous in showing disgust that this was brought to trial. If the left accidentally provokes something much bigger because of this acquittal, they’ll quickly lose a lot of support.

            1. Thing is, we have no idea about the potential immediate future.

              But, our gut stuff may be quite sharp.

              (At least, if we neglect mine. 🙂 When I am doing well, I am most effective for blind spots, stuff over looked, and weird counter intuitive angles. Or stuff people usually gloss over, because good enough for most problems, that has some results that aren’t standard when you chew it to death.)

              We are estimating what other people might decide to do when. If we think in sane and ordinary ways, our deeper instincts give us some clues about which way others might be twitching.

              1. Thing is, we have no idea about the potential immediate future.

                No, we don’t. And the last two years should be proof of that to anyone who claims otherwise. IIRC, two years ago we were just starting to hear that there was an odd new illness in the Chinese city of Wuhan.

                1. Nope. Two years ago, people at work already had the Mysterious Creeping Crud with the Weird Dry Cough. Right after all those Chinese folks came in, all looking poorly and having the Weird Dry Cough.

                  1. Oh, it was here by October 2019. We didn’t know it was the CCCoronavirus, not just the flu.

                    1. I don’t recall if the conversation with my doctor was in June or Dec of 2020, but he assured me that my COVID symptoms that laid me out flat in mid March couldn’t possibly have been the Chinavirus, because it wasn’t detected until April in the county.

                      As I was quietly remembering the March message from the MD on call. Negative flu A, negative B, but no COVID tests were available. They couldn’t get testing for the two people who were in hospital in serious distress, because The Hospital Couldn’t Get CDC COVID Test Kits!!!111eleventy!!!

                      I’m stuck with this doctor, maybe (recalls the low cost clinic in Flyover Falls, with an extension not too far from the Tribal Health facility in $NEARBY_TOWN), but just seeing the guy spikes my blood pressure. This is the same guy who grilled me as to which MD had the nerve to recommend not taking the not-Vax. I refused to tell him.


                  2. 1.) My point still stands. You hadn’t heard about anything weird locally. Again, we were just starting to hear about an odd new illness in the Chinese city of Wuhan. Whether or not it had already sneaked into where you live and work doesn’t change that because you apparently didn’t think the new “weird dry cough” all that out of the ordinary.
                    2.) Do any of the symptoms – for example aching joints, loss of sense of taste and smell, death due to weird stuff in the lungs – match beyond the “weird dry cough” that you mention? Because that’s also around the same time that the seasonal flu starts to show up most years.

                    1. As I mentioned at the time, in facebook whining, and forgot by the time the loss-of-taste thing was noted officially– “Silver lining to us getting that nasty flu going around, kids got a science lesson on how the sense of smell makes it so you can taste stuff!”

                      More relevantly, we *can* look at the ILI (Influenza Like Illness) cases– which were really high compared to prior years, except for those where there was a known novel virus going around.

                      There were more flu tests done, but it was notably less likely for folks with flu-symptoms to get a positive flu test; looks like a third to half as likely as prior years.

                2. If that. The news didn’t certainly spread until 2020.

                  I remember the jokes about how no one expected that the UK leaving the EU would NOT be the biggest story of the first quarter of 2020.

      2. Democrats and their media arm are absolutely going insane over the acquittal, with Democrats like Newsom, Biden, etc., outright slandering Rittenhouse, the judge, the jurors.

        A reminder that Antifa and BLM are the Democratic Party’s brownshirts/blackshirts who were rioting, looting and killing in service of the Democrats’/lefts’ thirst for absolute totalitarian power the same way the brownshirts/blackshirts did in the first half of the twentieth century.

          1. The Bret Weinstein/Heather Heying “Dark Horse” podcast today noted that the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office building still has plywood over the windows, and the windows themselves still have the broken glass in them. So I guess the sheriff expects that if they repaired the windows they’d just get broken again.

        1. Maybe the thugs in Kenosha got the message: “You can legally be shot, and the people will cheer your shooter. You really want to try it again?”

  8. I’ve never thought you were insane.
    There were a couple of times where I didn’t understand your position(s); but after some thought and conversation they are usually correct.

  9. The Next thing that will happen is “Federal Civil Rights Charges” against Rittenhouse, on the basis of attacking members of a (((protected minority))) but they won’t exactly say that. It has been Obvious from the start that the ‘government’ CANNOT ALLOW self-defense against their ‘Brownshirts’ aka ‘antifa’. The Fact that None of the communists (or their useful idiots, the Pavement Apes) Rioting ever get Arrested on Felony Charges is all you need to know about ‘Whose Side’ the so-called ‘justice system’ is on.
    And as a member of Team #headsonpikes, Give us an Excuse, Any Excuse. We are the Only Solution to the Problem.

    1. Which minority, the pedophile?

      Ask the average person on the street how many of the people who attacked Rittennhouse were black and see how many say three when the answer was none. Lies all the way down.

      1. Hate to argue with you, but “Jump Kick Man” has been identified, Maurice Freeland. BTW, he’s black, so 3/4 are white.

        1. OK, Jump kick man didn’t get shot, too bad. I’ll reword the sentence to how many of the people that Rittenhouse righteously removed from the gene pool were black,? Answer none. I refuse to use their framing, it’s one of their most powerful weapons.

          I don’t read the American papers but I do read several foreign ones and they all have it that it was all black guys. I pointed out that they were all white guys to my lefty sister and she told me I was lying and showed me the papers. She wasn’t very gracious when she found out I was right. She’d much prefer to be comfortably wrong than right and so remain aligned with the bien pensants.

          They need to have this pushed in their faces.

            1. But he may also be permanently scarred by the psychological trauma of using drugs. Think of all the unspeakable horrors that drug users endure. The most caring option is clearly summary execution on first use of drugs. Where is your compassion? Where is your humanity? Have you no decency? Have you no decency at all?


              Which is to say that these unreasonable arguments that they have been abusing for decades may void some obligations on our parts, and that they are far from being the only ones who can be unreasonable. I simply often decline to show off and compete. Both because it isn’t a really healthy place for me, and because so many people, including almost all y’all, behave properly enough that I do owe folks a certain degree of appropriateness in the arguments I raise.

              I have enough shame, that I would feel ashamed, to be saying to others ‘have you no shame?’, merely for disagreeing with me, or saying that I am wrong. I am very clearly wrong a /lot/. Been wrong before, probably wrong about something now, will be wrong in the future, and coming up with stupid ideas is the price for coming up with ideas. I am probably even regularly wrong about whether I am fussing at people merely for saying that I am wrong. XD

              *Okay, I seriously think we should have more capital punishment of criminals, and that current issues are partly a result of wrong doing by lawyers in suppressing the practice of capital punishment. I’ve considered summary execution of drug offenders, and do not favor the practical consequences of such a policy. So, my actual position on this is, albeit reluctantly, a less insane extreme than my joke.

        2. > BTW, he’s black, so 3/4 are white.

          You’re just assuming he’s black, probably based on some irrelevant thing like skin color. For all you know he might identify as white, or Native American, or Chinese, or even foxkin. Frankly, that you made the comment at all suggests you’re a racist.

          Two months of corrective labor and self-criticism sessions for you, Comrade. And remember, no matter how tough it may get, Big Brother really does love you.

          1. Race is engraved in you and can not be altered in any way, shape, or form. To even speak of identifying as another racism is unspeakable.

      2. Drop kick man seems to have been of a darker colour. However when the persecutors tried to get him to testify, he wanted some on the many charges against him discarded. He is the one who K tried to shoot and missed, thus K showing he is human.

        An ominous note, if you are as cynical as I, is that the feds can say that they need to file suit against K for shooting adrop kick man, since drop kick man is a “man” who fits into the hate crime basket. They can say that the locals failed to bring charges against K, so it is ripe for a civil rights violation.

        1. There’s a reason they’re all talking about crossing state lines, makes it a federal offense. Bloody barking seals. Rittenhouse’s slander and defamation suits could cost them serious money and they can’t have that, I am as cyclical as you are.

          Sufficient to the day though.

          1. Their problem? He was a minor whose had a divorced parent in both states. Legally, as a minor, his residence was both states. The gun never crossed state lines. Legally he was entitled to own that gun, that his parents and the one who helped him by storing it didn’t want him to have unlimited access is irrelevant, or should be. He was asked to be there that night.

            Now would I argue the person who asked him to be there that night is an idiot ass? Yes.

            Do I think the Feds might try to try him federally for “crossing state lines with a firearm”. Yes. Do I think they can win? OMG I hope not.

      3. Rittenhouse should thank his lucky stars that he missed the “Jump kick” guy. He is as the SJW/Tranzi types say a POC (given who he is alleged to be). But yes oddly the folks out causing trouble that evening were heavily white males as many of the Tranzi seem to be. Usually ones well known to law enforcement for their various misbehaviors.

    2. That’s going to be harder than it looks, because all the people he was charged with shooting were not minority group members. They may file charges on him, but that will be hard to make stick….. unless they move the trial to DC or Chicago.

      1. Rumor has it that one of the three was/is Jewish, but today? Nah, alas I don’t think that Jewish is considered a protected group.

        1. OP used the ((())) notation, so yes he was talking about jewish. And also means that within his particular clownbrain they are a protected class.

    3. Maybe not. Biden, who said he didn’t watch the trial, came out and said
      “I stand by what the jury has concluded,”
      “the jury system works and we have to abide by it.”
      Then in a longer statement
      “While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken.”
      I realize that doesn’t prevent Merrick Garland from filing charges, but I don’t think the administration wants Kenosha staying in the news – since it shows that citizens can stand up to the brownshirts.

      BTW, it seems the crowd outside the courthouse that formed after the verdict was announced was loudly pro-Rittenhouse. 🙂

      1. I read elsewhere that there were some anti-Rittenhouse protestors, but that they were boxed in by the pro-Rittenhouse people. From the sound of it, the intent was to forestall any troublemakers who wanted to use a Not Guilty verdict as an excuse to immediately run wild.

      2. Hell the FICUS doesn’t know if he’s messed his pants these days. I suspect he just issued the usual platitudes and walked away without answering questions. Meanwhile his handlers are going berserk as he said the wrong thing according to the narrative. Go long on popcorn its going to be a weird 4 years.

    4. The real reason for them turning this into a race case (which it isn’t) is simple: it’s symbolism. They feel too many black men get sent to prison unjustly, so they’re going to railroad this white guy in retaliation. They don’t care if he was justified or not because the injustice was supposed to be the whole point. But the jury didn’t give them what they wanted so by next week they’ll be posting thinkpieces saying juries need to be replaced by AIs programmed by socialists or else America is racist forever.

      1. Anti-Racism is essentially a fundamental violation of the peace consensus that had prevailed in America.

        The reason whites were persuaded to quit Segregation was twofold. One, a majority of white voters had been persuaded that it was a violation of the peace consensus, and as per the values of the consensus, something that they really ought to knock the eff off right now. Two, white politicians of racist or corrupt personal convictions decided that they could implement it in a screwed up way for spite or for gain.

        (Thus we have the data from desegregated schools that ‘race realists’ take as proving black inferiority, ignoring that blacks excelled in segregated schools, where they had teachers who were motivated to help the black students with math. So, the data does indicate a ‘systemic’ problem, actually, but it is not the alleged systemic problem, and is anti-racism and Education majors at least as much as anything. There are still people who can and will teach math to blacks, despite everything. Lack of motivation probably hits black students worse because of all the anti racism that insists on promoting crime tolerance. Insisting that violent ‘children’ remain in schools leaves teachers a concern for personal safety that, surprise, limits motivation to teach mathematics properly.)

        They keep pushing this stuff, and they will find that they have moved Americans emotionally in my direction, but not as fast or extreme, with a lot more common sense and sanity.

          1. Already happening. My nephew’s “social studies” teacher split her class along racial lines for a “game” which the white kids could not win. They had to justify an unjustifiable position based ONLY on the information the teacher provided. The information provided made it impossible for my Nephew’s team to win.

            1. What did parents do? I know what this parent would do. Has to happen first. Once it does kid gets told, “Take the F. Do not participate. Ask to leave. If denied have them call us.” Yes. I would be claiming Racism. Then we pull him from public school. FYI, know dang well that is what my mom would have done. She embarrassed me enough times back when I was in school (’60s and ’70s) … Not that I don’t appreciate her actions now. Yes. I realize that this would have been easier even when my child was in school (’90s and ’00) VS now. Also be aware that where we are, this would be dang difficult for TPTB to pull off. Locally we don’t have that much diversity … Heck my son probably would be classified as non-white as his coloring is darker than our illustrious VP. As far as I know 100% British Isle (Britain/Scotland) with a smattering of French Jew (which I didn’t know until recently).

              1. Ironically, this was actually his 2nd year of public school–he’s been home schooled most of his life. I don’t know what my sister did. My involvement was in showing him how to use the teacher’s limited information to prove his own position.

        1. I’m getting second-hand accounts about a guy who HAD sons who are at least a decade older than the kid– declaring him a “man” and lying left, right and center to justify the hatred of the seventeen year old boy who was more of a man than the accuser.

          Bet this gets through to the mothers-of-sons.

          1. It certainly does get through to this grandmother of a white male.
            Who was baby-sat today for about an hour, while Daughter and I went to shift my car around from garage to body repair shop … by my elderly next-door neighbor and her equally-elderly sister. Who are ladies of color, and who have been our neighbors since I bought my house, 25 years ago. Miss Irene and her sister are the only other people besides myself that Wee Jamie will smile for. They cuddled him today, while watching TV …
            We have watched Miss Irene’s grandsons grow up – serious and hard-working kids, who now have spouses of their own, are responsible members of the community. If they had ever been inclined towards the thug life, Miss Irene would have taken over after their mother and father got tired of beating them.
            Communities like ours are probably stronger than the proggies all assume…

            1. With Bells On.

              Race war nutters think everyone is as mad for race war as they are, and spends their time drunk on the same ink.

              They are blind to the possibility that some have quietly and most emphatically chosen to live other ways.

              Every silent failure to follow the script and start wildly murdering like savages makes the lunatics a little bit crazier. Which is not a great joy to be around.

              The Doomer position often starts from arguing the theoretical inevitability of the acts that we do see thrust in our faces, obviously, in public. However, one of the keys to whatever it is going on, to whatever will happen, is all of the things that we have not seen, privately, in our own lives.

    5. I would have guessed “Federal Civil Rights Charges” too, but it’s starting to look like the Party line will be to make Rittenhouse into an anti-martyr, an evil villain who got away with his crimes and an object for two-minute hates.

    6. Apparently the utterly lawless HarrisBidenGarland DOJ is going to go after the jury that voted to acquit. Yet another reminder of why Garland is unfit for any government role, much less AG or any court, much less the Supreme Court,

  10. If you think “defund the police” is actually a good idea . . . you’ll get more Rittenhouses.

    If you think that looting and burning when you don’t get your way is a legitimate political tactic . . . you’ll get more Rittenhouses.

    1. That’s why they DESPERATELY wanted cops to be the only ones allowed to do policing, especially with how good they are at getting mobs going.

    2. What they tend to miss is that the police are there keep the citizens from executing summary justice. Take the police away and you get death squads and pedos hanging from lampposts. Now I’m all in favor of the lampposts, but really it’s better to have a functioning justice system so one does not need blood feuds.

      I think even more than the stupidity, they lack…. imagination.

  11. I actually wonder how many of the jurors in Kenosha were a little bit POed – that a bunch of violent outsiders could come to their town and freely burn, loot and deface their downtown district. Their businesses, their schools, their city offices. Thank G*d they had the nerve to do the right thing, in the face of threats of violence.

    1. I’ve been wondering if the Stupid Reporter Trick of trying to chase down the juror’s home addresses might’ve been what got the hold outs to realize there was no safe option. They would be hunted down and killed for having gotten the mob’s attention…just like the mob tried to do with Kyle.

      1. Well, the nasty cold front that came to visit for Thanksgiving is probably good for something!

        Hope they’ve got the nasty wind we’ve got here– yesterday was nice, today bites twice as hard for that memory.

  12. I think Himself was watching out for young. Rittenhouse when he missed the only POC he shot at.

    If there was an actual injury/death of one of our victim class members, I’m guessing things would be different.

  13. I had just given blood and was about to go into a diner for the office Christmas party (the ladies wanted it early so they have their bonuses for gift shopping) when the verdicts came down. Man, that got my heart pumping.
    Very glad for the verdicts and my cynical side still said, “Let the riots begin.” But it will be very interesting if they don’t. First, because not rioting would be the best move for the left. Second, because it would add weight to the argument last year’s riots were deliberate and disciplined moves againstTrump.

    1. I’m a bit saddened to hear that.

      I’ve had some difficult times myself, had wished that I had more people to talk to, and wish that I were better at talking to others in difficulty.

      The few things I’m confident about do not feel like they would be helpful.

      1. This blog is the best for communication between people, not just great insight on issues. People will respond to things in participants lives. Of course at the hour I’m writing this less goes on and our host is usually carrying nighttime Instapundit.

    2. I’ve been arguing with the black dog chewing on my arse as well, wish I could offer help or advice. I’m just too damn stubborn to give in to the universe.

    3. Now that I’m getting better at resisting the black dog you know I’m only a few hours away if you need me, Herb.

  14. As some wag said on Twitter, the only highlight of the Harris Administration was the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse.

    1. From another wag in a Youtube comment: there’s a new drink combo called the Rittenhouse. It’s a chaser followed by three shots.

  15. Well all of the Constitutional Convention talk aside.

    I’m hoping a recent event has shown you Sara, that you are not a lonely voice talking into the darkness. But a huge towering lantern shining with, dare I say it, COMMON SENSE.

  16. Sarah,

    We are listening to you and are very encouraged by your writing, I check your blog every morning at 0700.

    1. I get the blog via email, so I can’t miss it. I check it regularly every day for the day’s post. Good thing I’m retired, because I spend a lot of time reading the comments, too.

  17. Amendments to the constitution are necessary, but not sufficient. The political class has been twisting and ignoring the constitution for decades. We have to change our minds and insist that the constitution be followed and that the spirit of the declaration of independence be followed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    In short we have to de-deify civil government. We have to cast down our idols.

    Repent Resist Reform Rejoice

    1. Yes. To me, just getting the government to follow and repairing damage to the Constitution from incorrect SC decisions is a key task. Officially acknowledging the Declaration of Independence as a controlling document in interpreting the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be good.

      Fight to restore the laws and values of our country!

    2. Er…. people are already losing confidence in government. And in the US it was NEVER deifyed. TRUST me on this. I grew up in Europe.
      And trust me on this too, you don’t want supremacy of religion in the US. It will be everyone’s hand against everyone else’s.
      Dear Lord, there are Catholics I consider more heretical than Mormons. And we’re both in good standing.
      STEP DOWN from that.

      1. I disagree: socialism/communism/progressivism/etc., is the deification of government since it is the most powerful version of collective man. They look to government as the source of life, liberty, and happiness. Many conservatives don’t have a relative conservatism that simply lags 20 years or so behind progressivism.
        Further, it’s always a question of what religion is supreme. The American civic religion has been predominant for a long time, but has been steadily attacked by leftism, which is itself a religion. The basis of the civic religion was Christianity, but unmoored from the foundation it cannot withstand attacks. Even if you turn the clock back, without the foundation it won’t last.
        I agree that people are losing confidence in government, but the question is whether they are losing confidence in the ability of the Biden cabal to deliver the goods or whether they are losing confidence that government should be doing a lot of the things it does. If it’s the former the death spiral may slow, pause, or even turn back for a while, but again it won’t last.
        Civil government has to be reined in in scope and thus financially to the point it was at the beginning of the 20th century, where all of civil government at all levels was <10% of gdp.
        Whether you call it repentance, change of worldview, unless our view of what government should do changes we will continue to wildly oscillate between relative extremes.
        I'm not pessimistic about what is going to happen, far from it. I agree with you and Bill Whittle that leftism is defeated, but a lot of battles and trauma remain. I believe this because leftism is the enemy of Christ and Christ reigns and will reign until all his enemies are defeated and the growth of his kingdom in history has no end.

        1. I disagree: socialism/communism/progressivism/etc., is the deification of government since it is the most powerful version of collective man.

          How does that disagree with Sarah’s statement that the US doesn’t have it?

          1. Has the scope of government in the US expanded or contracted in the past 100+ years? When liberals have power the scope expands, when conservatives have power the scope expands. Why? Because both agree that there is nothing in principle that civil government should not do. Conservatives in power generally just want to do things slower and more efficiently. No one effectively questions or works in office to reduce the scope of government because it is political suicide. Sarah alluded to the religious wars among Christians in the 16th to 18th centuries. We still have those, but they are not openly amongst Christian denominations, rather among various varieties of humanism.

            1. Has the scope of government in the US expanded or contracted in the past 100+ years?

              Nope, not playing that game.

              The only way that your objection would work is if we HAVE a socialist/communist/progressive government in the US, which we objectively do not.

              1. Communist or socialist in terms of who owns the means of production, no. But the cabal is fascistic in nature. And the more fundamental point is who or what is considered the highest authority in America. For some, the president, others congress, others the supreme court, others may see a collective People, or the individual. All these viewpoints are humanism and all of them will trend towards looking to the state as the pinnacle of authority. Except for individualism they all will look to the state as the source of rights and the means of power. But left to themselves individuals cannot avoid being overwhelmed. So they organize to gain control of what they see as the highest authority: the state. Thus still religious wars, just between sects of humanism instead of Christianity. All of the humanism sects look to Man, ultimately collective Man as the highest authority, i.e. their god.

                1. You realize that shifting definitions to kind of sort of have some sort of resemblance to the original claim will not only not persuade people, it’s going to make people distrust an future claims you make, right?

                  Not only have you failed to support your idea that civil gov’t is deified in the first place, you’ve basically shown that you’ve got the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s idea of exactly how purged things have to be in order for you to find them acceptably cleansed!

                  1. My original claim is that we have deified civil government, most particularly the national civil government because we look to it as the final authority on every matter. Because we the people do that we have a national government that expands its scope into more and more aspects of our lives. It keeps ratcheting in the same direction because we have bought into the lie that only it has the wisdom and power to really address any issue.
                    I am not looking for any kind of purge or cleansing other than that which comes when individuals are convicted of sin and righteousness and judgment by the Holy Spirit and in repentance change their ways: thoughts, words, and deeds to conform to both the written word of God and the incarnate Word which is Christ. Do I expect that repentance to cascade through families, churches, businesses, schools, government and other organizations? Yes. But not by coercion, by persuasion.
                    So yes, I stand by my statement of deification. This has been the stance of paganism from the beginning. The divine right of kings, the divine emperor, the divine caesar, pharaoh, etc.
                    The Declaration recognized this and stated that men have inalienable rights that come from their Creator. The constitution sought to implement this idea with a system of government that would defend these God given rights, but it has been progressively abrogated by several generations of politicians who worship Power above all.
                    Look at what we’re all talking about right now: a government that says you have no sovereignty over your very personal medical decision to receive an experimental medical therapy. This government claims they have sovereignty over your body–that means in principle they could likewise command your donation of a kidney or any other organ or any other medical procedure. That’s a claim of absolute sovereignty over you, it’s a claim of deity. And at one point some 60+% of people agreed with it. That number has come down, but not principally because people are saying ‘Hey, you’re not God, you have no authority to do this!’ Rather, it’s because of the widespread failure and side effects of the vaccines. And I do believe many, many people believe there is a lack of authority for the mandates, but also don’t have a clear idea of why that is. Are they unconstitutional? I certainly think so. But my objection is more fundamental than that: I see them as a token of submission to an all powerful federal government. I see them the same way early Christians saw burning incense to caesar: a denial of Christ.
                    One of the great impacts of Christianity is the de-deification of civil government and the recognition that civil government and its officials are subject to the law, not the source of law. That’s why Knox wrote Lex Rex. That’s why the Declaration lists out the offenses of the British crown, because there was and is a higher authority than civil government.
                    Contrary to what you think, my view is that there are competing authorities in life. Each has a sphere of authority and those spheres overlap. Among these are: individuals; families; churches; and civil government. None is absolute in authority and overreach by one should be opposed by the others. Moreover, I believe federalism in civil government is foundational: local, state, and national government have overlapping spheres of authority and overreach by one should be opposed by the others. Going further I believe separation of executive, legislative, and judicial authority is best to maintain justice and freedom. Likewise for bicameral legislative bodies.
                    Because in the end I want to worship the Lord in peace, and live my life as I see fit, provided I am not harming others.
                    But today we have only the vestiges of that, just images in a broken system.
                    It was John Adams who said the constitution was only fit for a moral and religious people. The influence of progressivism/socialism/communism has caused us to lose sight of that. We have bought into their assumptions and have been inundated in their assumptions through education, media, entertainment. It affects us whether we want it to or not.
                    In order take back and maintain our freedom we have to rein in our expectations of what civil government is supposed to do.
                    We have to slay leviathan.

                    1. Your original argument was:

                      We have to change our minds and insist that the constitution be followed and that the spirit of the declaration of independence be followed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

                      In short we have to de-deify civil government. We have to cast down our idols.

                      To which Sarah responded, accurately, that the US ain’t deifying the gov’t, even before the loss of confidence.

                      Your counter to that was that the Commies (for short) practice deification of the government.

                      So this is yet another claim in the group of related but different claims, not the original argument.

                      One could even make the argument that YOUR original argument looked to the government as, if not the ultimate authority, then an accepted and shared authority. Which is good and the point of a government, even one wise enough to have a description of what to do when it breaks written into the very preamble.

              2. We absolutely have a Communist government, it is a government controlled from the top, from the Obama Junta to the pants shitting Usurper to the overly botoxed “leaders in Congress totally under communist control, because they are all Marxists. We don’t, as of yet have a Communist system of government.

  18. The Bill Whittle segment was great. That man is a treasure.

    But the blog entry… I was with him until his utter contempt and disdain for anyone who holds any kind of job that can be done remotely became obvious. Yes, if the guy who works for the power company doesn’t go out to the pole and repair the wires everyone will know it and the effects are immediate. But if the folks in the call center didn’t take the report and dispatch him to the pole, the effect is the same. If the people in Purchasing weren’t keeping tools, wire, and other essential materials stocked on his truck, the effect would be the same. There are VERY few jobs left that aren’t dependent upon a long, interconnected chain of related support services to succeed and I’m very tired of everyone dissing those of us who have jobs that can be done remotely. And this Malcolm guy has basically written every single one of us off as leftist scum existing parasitically on the backs of the poor hard working folk who have to go in every day. To him I say, “Let’s go, Malcolm!”

    1. I did point out he has a funny idea of people with remote jobs.
      I don’t think it’s utter contempt, though, I think it’s the fact most of us in ah “mind jobs” have stayed quiet and like the left he assumes consent, without realizing the cancellation was true 40 years ago, if you mouthed “right wing” opinions.
      This is semi-justified because he’s NOT in the US, so he has NO clue.

      1. Yes, you did point it out 🙂 And maybe the fact I went in knowing to look for it colored my reactions a bit. That, and constantly being told that having a white collar job means I’m obviously one of THOSE people. I have a pretty visceral reaction to being told what I am. Definitely a character failing *lol*

        I didn’t realize the blogger was not in the US. His writing doesn’t give it away at all—usually the devil’s in the idiom. So yes, allowances need to be made.

        Nice to see you back into a more usual schedule!

        1. 😀
          I am ESL, you know that, right??
          The funny thing is reading DST — written 23 years ago (no sh*t) and finding that even after living 14 years in the US my language still rubs me “weirdly formal” now and then.

          1. I do know! But on non pro writers, it’s usually easier to pick up on the little cues. That little bit of stiffness/formality is definitely one of those cues; there’s this sense of someone wearing a shirt that almost fits but pulls a bit in the wrong places. On blogs I can usually pick it up right away. Novels, if the writer and editor are both good at their work, not nearly so much.

            You’re good at your work 🙂

        2. He’s a Swede of half-Ugandan, half-Swedish extraction.

          I think you guys are incorrect about his use of “email job caste”. For one thing, it’s a link off to https://americancompass.org/the-commons/how-essential-are-the-email-job-caste/ that contrasts what you might call the Dirty Jobs types vs. white- and pink-collar middle management/HR types that never ever have to work overtime. And for another, look at the examples he uses: HR manager and Gender Studies Professor. He’s using it as a stand-in for “credentialed class” and “parasitical middle management”, not “anyone with an office job”. If your industry’s Dirty Jobs types would be unable to do their jobs but for your support, he’s not talking about you.

          1. Spouse does taxes. Come January, it will be a miracle if he does less than 50 hours a week. And that will only happen if we sit on him. (He’s been doing 60 or more, but it’s getting too exhausting).
            I’ll be part-time, probably, so probably I won’t be doing overtime as receptionist.
            So yeah, we aren’t part of the caste.

            1. Neighbor is an accountant. He disappears on April 16th for a few days; usually golf. He works insane hours.

              Last job I had was writing and supporting governmental Cost Accounting software (city, county, federal tribes). Our busy times were when Auditors showed up at clients, and year-end. You’d think these would be a particular time of the year. Well year-end there is calendar, fiscal, and federal, and ran anywhere from 1 to 3 months after. So in practice mid-September thru March, and mid-May thur August. Auditor? State or Federal. Any time of the year.

        3. It seems fairly likely that there are a lot of estimations of this or that group within the US based on data that has been profoundly tampered with.

          So I’m pretty easily spun up on ‘what do we actually know’, and get boring fast.

          On the one hand, we really do seem to need to be alert for covert enemies pretending to be friends.

          Other hand, really weird confusing situation, and the stress levels may be making our tempers shorter.

      2. I had a professional tenure track positions in a Catholic University, come the 2000 election I had Bush Cheney stickers on my front and back bumpers. There were actually people who had previously been cordial to me never speak to me again, some would walk past me and act as if I wasn’t there. My attitude is that I was better with them out of my life

  19. I don’t remember if I mentioned this or not. My grandfather, Earl Bagley, was on the Gambier Bay in Leyte Gulf when it was hit and sunk there. He spent three days on a small raft with a few other people, waiting to get rescued while sharks circled around them. They lost one on their raft.

    1. Only one? That’s impressive. Most of the scattered groups of survivors lost a number of people to either sharks or delirium from dehydration. The rescue efforts were, unfortunately, a mess, and something that should have been accomplished in less than twenty-four hours took much longer.

      1. Apparently my grandfather had a lot of luck. But yea– he did lose his best friend with the initial shot that tore open the ship. My grandfather was a radar tech-maintenance. He was off getting something and they got hit right through the radar room

  20. Remember that the left needs to control government to control the funding, and all the accusations of racism are just to justify their control. I get the 25% argument but the fact is we have alternating parties winning the elections indicating that the undecideds can make it 50/50, and to have lasting impact we need to shift the electorate (note the outsize impact a passionate minority like the squad can have when they hold power). The win/win is to shift the electorate through outreach to the underclass via the black church while defunding the left. Think vouchers, trade schools and STEM, term limited government employment.

    The left points to the symptoms of societal dysfunction stemming from the breakdown of the family in accusing America of being the cause of them. The implication is that addressing the breakdown of the family is required to defeat the left.

  21. Thanks for keeping up these posts. Rittenhouse’s acquittal does have the feeling of one of those pivotal moments where you know the tide is starting to turn. The jury making the right call despite the media/celebrity/Democrat axis screeching and threatening them is one of those things that the American spirit is all about, like a story out of the old books. Like you’ve warned things will still get rough, and I always remain wary of how the right seems fond of unforced errors of various stripes, but this time it looks like there’s enough people ready, willing, and able to seize the day and take it to the left no matter what those fools do.

    1. I think more and more people are hearing the shrieks of “White Supremacy! Racism! The KKK walks among us!” and are realizing just how far from reality the media and political (and entertainment) classes are. Combine it with the disaster in the smouldering dumpster that just rolled out of the US House, and well . . .

      1. It’s hard to ignore the stench for sure. Various forms of Covidiocy being persistent does worry me, too, though that could be recent events talking. Here’s hoping we start seeing more people backing down on that soon.

  22. I was just thinking, I would have about busted a gut laughing if Head Ass-Clown Binger had managed to put a bullet through the wall above the jury box while monkeying around with that AR-15.

    “But— but— It wasn’t loaded!”

    “You never checked the chamber.”

    “Check the what?”

    “You swept half the courtroom, too, you dumbshit!”

    Not so funny if the idiot had actually shot somebody, though.

  23. I’ll say this here, but I’ll repeat it anywhere it seems valuable to the cause, because I think it needs to be said. Bill Whittle is a vital national resource. Thanks to the late Connie du Toit, I’ve been following Bill almost since he first started blogging at Eject! Eject! Eject!. About five or six years ago, I was reading an article of Bill’s on a break at work. A co-worker was wandering past my desk and noticed what I was reading. He exclaimed, “Bill Whittle! I love him!” (Realize that the owner and president of the company was/is a Democrat engaged in electoral politics and a sometime office-holder.)

    In reply, I asserted, “Bill Whittle is to me somebody who, if we disagree on a topic and he’s not wrong on the merits…” (I hate that the commies have appropriated the word “objective”) “… I change my mind.”

    That’s the substance of Whittle’s value for me — if we disagree (I’m allowed to think for myself) and he’s not wrong (and I’ve done my homework) I change my mind. Every thinking human being should have the wherewithal to do the same.

    1. Back in the day, I had Eject Eject Eject up and had a plumber come to deal with the bathroom next to my office. He looked at my screen and said “Bill Whittle is great.”
      I asked for that plumber till he retired

Comments are closed.