❝❝When someone starts offering two and only two alternatives, that's the cue to look for the fourth, fifth, and sixth choices.❞❞

— NeoWayland NeoNote — Abortion is not about women's rights

Tags: maxims ∙ two and only two ∙ cross posted

❝❝Political orientation isn't the problem. Politics is.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ political orientation

❝❝Within our borders, absolutely we should have Truth, Justice, and the American way.

Outside, no. We should be an inspiration, not a hegemony.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ 9-11 ∙ inspire ∙ require ∙ meddle ∙ United Fruit Company ∙ Hawaii ∙ Iran ∙ military intervention ∙ taxpayer funds ∙ Muslim ∙ 20th Century ∙ America ∙ honor ∙ Character ∙ hegemony ∙ reputation ∙ Truth Justice American Way ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Donald Trump ∙ alphabet agencies ∙ conservatives ∙ goverment ∙ culture ∙ liberals ∙ Obamacare ∙ passion ∙ Isaac Asimov ∙ Roy Moore

❝❝Rather than citing examples of "rightness" being a mental illness, I think I will just cite the old idiom Moderation in all things.

I will say that from my perspective it's not "right" or "left" that is wrong per se, but the desire to control others while avoiding the consequences of your own actions. The reasons and the justifications change, not the actions.

---

Just where do you think the "left" learned the self-righteous, sanctimonious posturing?

Frankly, I don't care who did it first, second, or most recently. Or what the scoreboard says.

You're playing the game, perpetuating the problem. And I have absolutely no assurance that if "your guys" win, my life will be better. Just your promises, which are worth exactly nothing based on past experience.

After all, you've just admitted that you can't stand dissent and disagreement.

---

If I've no investment in the ideology and your side "breaks the rules" to suppress dissent, then there is no benefit for me to support "the system" no matter which side "wins."

I'd be better off bringing down the whole mess and helping people pick up the pieces afterwards.

That's the stakes you're playing for. Not if your side wins, but if there will be a game left to play, or even if there will be recognizable sides.

So thought experiments aside, are you willing to play with these stakes?

---

The rules of the game mean you can't win. Neither can they. Oh, each side trades advantage with the other, but the conflict goes on and feeds on itself.

That's not being heroic, that's being damn stupid. What good does it do to protect the widows and orphans when there is no safe place to go?

---

Of course there are rules of the game, number one being winner take all. Number two being that the "truth" of the argument is determined by the winner of the conflict. Number three is that winning the conflict grants the power to silence dissent. Number four is that the conflict is far too important to allow ordinary people to ask questions.

This isn't Darwin, this isn't the nature of man, this is an artificial construct.

Should I go on?

I never claimed that I didn't answer. I implied you were asking the wrong questions. When anyone reduces things to an either/or premise, that is usually the case.

---

There you go again, assuming the only response is either/or.

You think winning is the answer.

I want to remove the possibility of either side winning and starting the conflict all over again.

Because after you win, after you put down your sword and gun, after you take a deep breath on the field of battle, I and those like me will be there.

Pointing at you.

Laughing.

And you won't be able to touch us.

Sometimes you don't have to win. Sometimes it's enough to keep the other guys from crossing the finish line and claiming their bloodstained glory.

---

If you think the socialists winning means that the President, Congress, and the courts have unrestrained power, then you already lost.

And they have exactly as much power over you as you choose to give them.

---

Either/or is a self-imposed trap. It presupposes that there are two and only two alternatives.

The greatest single expansion of the Deep State was signed into law by a Republican.

---

Would it help you understand my point if I (truthfully) told you that since a month or two after the handoff, I've said that Hong Kong will be remembered in history as the City That Ate A Country?

---

It's not a matter of free market DNA. It's the fact that Hong Kong has the most capitalist and competitive society on the face of the planet.

I agree we're talking at cross purposes. You see it as all wrapped up and I see a Gordian knot. In the case of Hong Kong, a free Hong Kong has a greater value than the Chinese military.

But for now, let's agree that we do disagree and move on.

---

And that is when you change the game.

---

Did you accept the rule set before you started playing?

---

Well, that is a interesting philosophical premise.

I'd agree that for most purposes, there appears to be an objective reality. From my purely subjective perspective of course. But pursuing that goes way beyond our conversation here.

Are the units autonomous? Well, that's another philosophical bit. For example, is the planet aware? Restricting our conversation to humans, are humans autonomous? I'd have to say that most individuals are not. No matter what the politics.

Are humans and specifically "leftists" dangerous? They can be, and mostly want to be. Are they more dangerous than "rightists?"

No.

As I said political orientation isn't the problem. Politics is.

---

I prefer Nolan's chart to the right-left dichotomy.

Politics is controlling the other.

I've spent a lifetime dealing with those who want to control others. Some do in the name of environmentalism, some do in the name of Divine moral authority, some do it for the "greater good." The justification changes, but the methods don't.

---

One of my biggest frustrations in today's politics is that people overlook what "their" side does even as they denounce the "other" side for doing the exact same thing.

We've reached the point where what is done is not nearly as important as who did it.

Meanwhile liberty takes a hit.

---

*shrugs*

My problem here is once you've won, then what? Especially if in victory you claim power and authority that you never should have had.

Earlier you told me that if the socialists won in 2020, I'll personally lose. My response was to point out that if the EEEEEVVVIIILLLL forces of government already had power to screw me on some technocrat's or politico's whim, then there is no point in me supporting your side because freedom is already gone.

Sure, you promise to fix it, you promise to Do The Right Thing, and I should believe that why?

““The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.””

— H.L. Mencken

---

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan between them escalated the "War On Drugs" and enabled the narco-state. Mandatory minimum sentences were made possible by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Wide scale civil forfeiture including sharing funds and proceeds with local police agencies was made legal by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The 1208 program and the militarization of local police dates to 1990, although it was changed to the 1033 program and was expanded in 1996. The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by Bush League.

This is only a small portion of things that have happened on a Federal level.

I ask for nothing except the freedom to live my life as I choose while accepting responsibility for my choices.

Who is the "right" to deny me those things?

---

I'm going to point out again that you're willing to overlook the abuses of "your guys" while going after the "other guys."

I want less government than absolutely necessary. What I see is a long history of Republicans and conservatives who want to expand government, regulation, and spending. The Deep State owes just as much to Republicans than to Democrats.

I don't care who is "in charge." I don't care who is to blame.

I want less government than absolutely necessary.

---

I gave specific examples of Republicans abusing power in ways that rival anything that Democrats have done or will do.

You are stuck on the label when you should be looking at the institution.

---

“Nothing R's have done in your lifetime can compare to the damage of the D's.”

Watergate.

Ford's pardoning of Nixon.

Ford's "Hail Mary" pass to save the CIA and his nomination of George H.W. Bush to director. Since it was before my birth, we'll ignore the rumors about Bush's CIA related activities between 1959 and 1964. Also before my time but I'm doing extra credit, the question remains why Bush was pretty much the one American in his generation who could not "remember" where he was on November 22, 1963.

Iran-Contra.

Changing of banking laws and regulations during the early 1980s, leading to the savings and loan crisis, the eradication of regional banks, and the consolidation of American banks and investment firms into selected giants.

The USA PATRIOT Act, literally the climax of decades old Deep State wet dreams. Start with Inslaw and PROMIS, look at the Danny Casolaro murder, and then look at what has happened the last twenty years.

I could go on and on. I haven't even touched on what happened with the Contract With America, or how the leaders of both major parties colluded and conspired against the Tea Party.

The vice or virtue is not in the label. Democrats and the left are not especially evil. Republicans and conservatives don't get a free pass because they are doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons.

I wanted to make this about government, the abuse of power and politics in general. You were the one making the case that Democrats and the left were irredeemably evil while Republicans and conservatives were mostly good.

---

First, stop blaming "leftists" for the evils of government.

Second, accept that the label Republican, conservative, or "rightist" doesn't make you saints or even the best qualified.

When you've done that, I'm ready to talk about the next bit.

---

I gave you examples, including Republicans who actively broke the law.

As for Republicans being the lesser evil, is there a one of them since Eisenhower who did anything other than go through the motions?

---

Start by admitting it is a government problem and not a Republican or Democrat situation.

Stop making excuses because some of your interests happen to line up at the time.

Until you do that, you're not ready to have this conversation.

---

You're treating a premise as an Article of Faith Not To Be Questioned.

As long as you hold onto that, you won't believe what I say or accept any solution that I propose. Because under that premise, it's absolute nonsense and can't possibly be anything else.

Or the premise is invalid.

---

That is not true.

There has to be a commonality to build on, especially for deeply held beliefs.

For example, I don't think humans need to be saved. So talking to me about a guy nailed to a cross isn't really going to resonate. Likewise, unless you accept anthropogenic climate change, the notion of a climate crisis won't make sense.

As for giving my views and the solutions, I have.

---

“There has to be rationality.”

Since when? Empires have risen and fallen without rationality. Trade agreements have been negotiated without rationality. Probably fewer than ten percent of Americans living right now are rational by any definition except they obey the rules they've been given.

Just to point it out again, I have stated the problem and the solution repeatedly. You reject the premise and therefore don't believe me. Government is the problem, even if it is a "friendly" government controlled by people you like. As long as you look to government for solutions, you make the problem worse.

Case in point, you've mentioned several times that we need to remove the left ideology from public schools and universities. Our public school system was created in part so that government could control what was taught. Did it never occur to you that as long as schools were publicly funded and government controlled, you can never remove the ideas that you don't like? Rather than taking control of schools and universities, maybe the answer is let the schools compete in a free market. The schools that can deliver value will thrive, the others won't. It's worked for everything from rye flour to smartphones, there is no reason to think it wouldn't work incredibly well for schools.

---

I haven't said anything about moral equivalence.

I just don't think that we should trust politicos to store and transport nuclear sludge in Hefty bags.

Don't tell me about the "virtues" of Republicans. Tell me why, despite their claimed support of smaller government, they haven't done anything substantial since JFK.

And he was a Democrat.

---

You've been telling me how virtuous the Republicans are. I'm telling you that based on their behavior, they aren't. There's less than a handful of effective Republican politicos on a national level who demonstrate honor and character. It's not because they are Republicans, it's because they have honor and character.

I gave you specific, catastrophic, and freedom destroying examples of highly placed Republicans turning government against the people. Some were felonies, and some weren't felonies only because no one had enacted laws against them yet.

I have offered solutions, you just don't like what I offered since it doesn't give conservatives legal and "moral" advantages that can be exploited against "leftists" because they are leftists.

“Just as we don't want other ideals imposed on us, we shouldn't impose our ideals on others. No matter how convinced we are that we are right.”

“The only thing they are really giving up is the power to compel behavior in others.”

You can't depend on government to do it for you.

---

Before Trump, who was doing it?

After Trump, who will continue doing it?

And that is assuming that Trump is a net benefit, something I do not believe.

All I've said is that Republicans aren't saints or "the better choice" because they are Republicans. The evidence supports my claims.

You've said that Democrats are more inherently more evil than Republicans. The evidence doesn't support your claims.

Show me people of honor and character and I will consider supporting them.

Show me Republicans and I will insist on honor and character. Show me Democrats and I will insist on honor and character. The label doesn't get a pass.

A man is measured in the lives he touched.

---

BTW, mandatory minimums, civil forfeiture of property without criminal convictions, and the militarization of police are hardly minor, superficial issues.

---

Your entire argument boils down to government is worse with Democrats in charge.

My argument is that government threatens liberty and rights no matter who is "calling the shots."

I gave you specific examples during Republican presidencies that have led to massive abuse of power.

I am not saying that Republicans are as bad as Democrats. I am saying that government is bad and it's time we reduced it's power and scope.

Otherwise we're fighting over who gets to be in charge with no evidence that Republicans are better or Democrats are better.

---

As long as we have government, let's make it too small to screw up our lives.

We have conditioned generations to believe that government is all wise and mostly benevolent. That government is the first, best, and last solution. That any problem can be fixed with more money and government expertise.

Provided no one asks inconvenient questions.

Me, I think government is radioactive and corrosive. I think it is occasionally useful in extreme circumstances but only if it is behind thirteen layers of protection. I think the risks of invoking government outweigh the benefits by several orders of magnitude.

And I do not trust anyone to use it wisely.

As far as the criminal abuse of the alphabet agencies, why do you think it began with Obama against Trump?❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ right ∙ Left ∙ game ∙ ideology ∙ break the rules ∙ Hong Kong ∙ City That Ate A Country ∙ objective ∙ subjective ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ Richard Nixon ∙ Ronald Reagan ∙ War on Drugs ∙ narco-state ∙ mandatory minimum sentences ∙ Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 ∙ 1208 program ∙ militarize police ∙ 1033 program ∙ your guys ∙ other guy ∙ label ∙ institutions ∙ Gerald Ford ∙ CIA ∙ George H. W. Bush ∙ USAPATRIOT ∙ Iran-Contra ∙ Inslaw ∙ PROMIS ∙ Danny Casolaro ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ public schools ∙ universities ∙ politicos ∙ Donald Trump ∙ good ∙ evil

Tags: Cherokee ∙ New Echota treaty ∙ 1835 ∙ House of Representatives ∙ Amerindian ∙ delegate ∙ tribe ∙ protectorate ∙ Wild Hunt

““Chairman Xi went a bridge too far in trying to seize control of Hong Kong. He is not dealing with barefoot villagers in the rice provinces. Hong Kong is a cleaner version of New York City. He is the emperor who controls everything except the city that keeps his empire afloat.””

— Don Surber, Xi blinks in Hong Kong

Tags: Don Surber ∙ Hong Kong ∙ China ∙ Chairman Xi ∙ New York

❝❝A terrifyingly surprising number of police officers also have "incidents of domestic abuse in their background." Not most to be sure, but the field seems to draw some really f…ed up people. Worse, police are legally shielded from the consequences of their own actions.

If the current "red flag law" proposals are any indication, almost all the criteria will certainly be political. Considering that most people including psychiatrists and psychologists are incapable of judging competence, motives, or morality without some intense analysis, that is asking for trouble.

Here's what you do not want to acknowledge. Most people are not criminal. Most gun owners don't casually shoot other people or property. And there is not a single background check that will prevent every possible mass shooter.

Now I could go on and on. I could point out that American gun laws originated to keep guns out of the hands of "blacks". I could list the puppycide incidents. I could point out the militarization of police, especially in the "War on Drugs." All of this overlooks one very simple thing. The Second Amendment exists because the Founders did not trust government.

All your suggestions, all your proposals, everything you've said will arm more government agents while making the populace unarmed. Tell me, do you want Trump's government heavily armed while you are not?❞❞

Tags: Second Amendment ∙ red flag law ∙ background checks ∙ War on Drugs ∙ government

❝❝If government is not a net benefit, then the question “What can government do?” changes to “How do we limit costs?”❞❞

— NeoWayland, liberty question

Tags: maxims ∙ economics ∙ government ∙ costs ∙ libertarian

“Who Inflicts the Most Gun Violence in America?”

Tags: clipping ∙ John W. Whitehead ∙ gun control ∙ guns ∙ government ∙ Ferguson ∙ Missouri ∙ police ∙ America

The Poorest 20% of Americans Are Richer on Average Than Most Nations of Europe

““A groundbreaking study by Just Facts has discovered that after accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and Food Stamps—the poorest 20% of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries. This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members. In other words, if the U.S. “poor” were a nation, it would be one of the world’s richest.

Notably, this study was reviewed by Dr. Henrique Schneider, professor of economics at Nordakademie University in Germany and the chief economist of the Swiss Federation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. After examining the source data and Just Facts’ methodology, he concluded: “This study is sound and conforms with academic standards. I personally think it provides valuable insight into poverty measures and adds considerably to this field of research.”””
     — James D. Agresti

Tags: guest content ∙ clipping ∙ James D. Agresti ∙ poor ∙ wealth ∙ wealth inequality ∙ America

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ heterosexuality ∙ straight

❝❝Once the law starts recognizing and enforcing differences, of course the rich and powerful will find ways to exploit and control the law. Of course politicos and technocrats will sell out and protect "their" companies from competition and "threats."

When the law complicates commerce, the law will be abused. This is not the fault of commerce or capitalism. This is the fault of influence peddling and politics. The only solutions are to have law control more and more, or to get law out of the way. The first way benefits established companies and government.

The second way is the only practical way to restore freedom and loosen cash flow.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from The 1619 Project: Scholarship Or Race Hustling?

Tags: commerce ∙ capitalism

Why are taxpayer dollars collected by force being spent on a playground? Any playground?

Tags: religious freedom ∙ regulation ∙ Trinity Lutheran ∙ Christian ∙ tax deduction ∙ taxes ∙ government ∙ private sector

Are you trying to make me irritated with you?

You keep going off on these anti-pagan rants.

Tags: YouTube ∙ PragerU ∙ guest content ∙ video ∙ freedom ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ lawsuit ∙ Alphabet ∙ Google ∙ Eric George ∙ public forum ∙ publisher ∙ First Amendment ∙ social media

Tags: Hong Kong ∙ City That Ate A Country

❝❝Mrs. Bookworm,

Are you trying to make me irritated with you?

You keep going off on these anti-pagan rants. This is what, the ninth or tenth? It's blood libel. You wouldn't stand for it if the targets were Jewish or Christian. I don't see why I should "turn the other cheek" when you target pagans.

Nature worship as such is not the problem. Any more than the KKK (a nominally Christian organization) is. Intolerance is the problem. Demanding that others follow the rules of your faith is the problem. Yes, Nature is red of tooth and claw. So are humans when untempered by civilization. And no, I do not mean civilization is Christianity. I regularly tell people that Christians (and the other two Big Monotheisms) are nicer people when they aren't the only game around. Yes, Christianity says some pretty nice things in that book. But it only plays by it's own rules when there is competition keeping it honest.

The vice or virtue is not in the label. It's in the words and actions of the individual. We're measured in the lives we touch.

You want to go after someone for intolerance, be my guest. You want to go after someone for monoculture and echo chambers, go for it. You want to go after someone for Nature worship, then you'll have to start with me. And I will turn it back on you with a vengeance. Not nicely, like I usually do with these discussions. Because you would do the same if it were your faith that was attacked. And so would everyone else here.❞❞

Tags: Bookworm ∙ anti-pagan ∙ blood libel ∙ Christian ∙ Christians ∙ civilization ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ label ∙ monoculture ∙ echo chambers ∙ Nature

““The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.””

— Winston Churchill

Tags: Winston Churchill ∙ vice ∙ capitalism ∙ virtue ∙ socialism

“Soph, also known as LtCorbis, is a 14 year old girl whose YouTube videos, dealing with issues like LGBT and gay pride, Islam, and pedophilia, have drawn the ire and leftist Buzzfeed reporters everywhere. Recently banned from YouTube but still active on BitChute, we explore her videos, and whether minors like her have simply been indoctrinated, and should be free to post content they may regret later on.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ Soph ∙ LtCorbis ∙ YouTube ∙ LGBT ∙ gay pride ∙ Islam ∙ pedophilia ∙ Buzzfeed ∙ minors

❝❝Those using tragedy for political benefit or opportunity, especially murder or a violent crime.❞❞

— political ghouls from NeoWayland's lexicon

Tags: lexicon ∙ ghouls

❝❝Neo-paganism has nothing to do with devaluing human life. The term neo-pagan is a recent invention and has nothing to do with morality.

Honestly, Mrs. Bookworm, have you ever known me to devalue human life? Have you ever seen me treat anyone disrespectfully unless they disrespected me or someone else first? Yet I am a neopagan under the scholarly definition. I greet the sunrise. I dance naked under the full Moon. I've written and spoken against war, blood sacrifice, and coercion.

The fact is there is no monolithic morality among neopagans. Even most neopagans can't agree what the term means except in the broadest terms.

Neopagan and pagan are not slur words. I'd be happy to answer any general questions I can, or find you someone who can if I can't. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, I'd appreciate it if I could expect the same.

---

That may be true. But using pagan or neopagan as a way to describe low morality is unacceptable. Mrs. Bookworm and others here would not accept a slur like this against Jews or Christians.

I'm not asking anyone to participate. I'm just asking for the same respect that they themselves expect.

---

For what it is worth, I'd say that modern pagans are less tolerant of others who insist that their faith/belief system/rule set must dominate.

Sometimes the trick is convincing them that the nasty ole conservative Christians aren't always or even usually the enemy.

---

There we get into "no True Scottsman."

Just as an example, I can promise you that the first century Christian was a considerably different creature than his sixth century counterpart. Just as the eighteenth century version was very different. And how the early twentieth century version differed from the late twentieth, or even the twenty-first century incarnation. And that doesn't even allow for all the various sects.

The way I see it, faith is between you and the Divine. No one else.

❝I call myself pagan because I don't have a better term. I'm polytheistic and pantheistic. On alternate Thursdays and every third Tuesday I might admit to an animism bent as well. On the 13th of the month, I'll tell you (truthfully) that the label isn't really all that important, only the manifestation.❞

By most modern standards, I'm pagan. Certainly in the sense that I look for Divine manifestation outside of an official Book. Some of my stuff came by way of the new age fluffiness, sure. Some of it also came from gnosticism and the silence of a desert dawn. Does that make it less valid for me than yours is for you?

I'm not something less. I'm something else.

---

But is it better than being a gun toting redneck?

See, people today like to forget, but pagans invented civilization. And trade. And philosophy.

The Visigoths weren't intent on destroying civilization as much as they were controlling it.

---

The problem with the Visigoths wasn't that they were pagan. The problem is that they wanted to control others. We have the same kind of people today, and they are just as destructive. The issue isn't paganism, it's politics. Just as it is for certain Christians today.

BTW, my mother was born in Louisiana, my maternal grandfather was born in Tennessee, and my stepdad's family is from Arkansas. I'd put my redneck bona-fides up against any one else's.

---

For those interested in conspiracy theory, the Merovingian dynasty was the "Holy Grail" proposed by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. That is, the bloodline supposedly descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. If this sounds familiar, Dan Brown lifted it for The Da Vinci Code. This may be the justification of the divine right of the European royals, although there is a (disputed) theory about a sacred king being a sacrifice.

This gets murky real fast, especially since many non-Western royals also trace their descent from gods.

Anyway, I've confuzzled things enough for now.

---

Not to mention that it wasn't unusual for the same sacred sites to be reused again and again and again, which raises the question of who or what was originally worshipped. And so on, and so forth…

Getting back to your point though, yes the Visigoths were pretty civilized. And yes they were pagan only in the sense that they weren't part of the Officially Approved variant faith at the time.

Traditionally, before someone goes after another faith, they always stomp out their own heresies. It's about the politics and who gets to call the shots, not about the purity of faith.

And of course that never happens in pagan faiths.

*ahem*

I might have set off the exaggeration alarm there.❞❞

— comments from No. 4 Bookworm Room Podcast: The Second Amendment, Morality, and Kindness

Tags: cross posted ∙ Bookworm ∙ pagan ∙ neopagans ∙ slur words

❝❝Do you really want to live in a country where the only thing between you and tyranny is the whim of the chief executive?❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ tyranny ∙ chief executive

❝❝Again, the "problem" isn't who ever is occupying the office. The problem is that we give government power to abuse and then act surprised when the alphabet agencies take it "too far."❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ power ∙ alphabet agencies

❝❝You're perfectly capable of making your own choices.

The real question is why politicos don't want you doing that.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ choice ∙ politicos

““If I have learned one thing from life, it is that race is the engine that drives the political Left. When all else fails, that segment of America goes to the default position of using race to achieve its objectives. In the courtrooms, on college campuses, and, most especially, in our politics, race is a central theme. Where it does not naturally rise to the surface, there are those who will manufacture and amplify it.””

— Ward Connerly

Tags: Ward Connerly ∙ Left ∙ race ∙ default position

““Since the social victim has been oppressed by society, he comes to feel that his individual life will be improved more by changes in society than by his own initiative. Without realizing it, he makes society rather than himself the agent of change. The power he finds in his victimization may lead him to collective action against society, but it also encourages passivity within the sphere of his personal life.””

— Shelby Steele

Tags: Shelby Steele ∙ social victim ∙ oppressed ∙ changes in society ∙ initiative ∙ agent of change ∙ victimization ∙ passivity

““It’s often said that the Democrats fight 'for the little guy.' That’s true: liberals fight to make sure the little guy stays little! Think about it. What if all the little guys were to prosper and become big guys? Then what? Who would liberals pretend to fight for? If the bamboozlers fight for anything, it’s to ensure that the little guy stays angry at those nasty conservatives who are holding him down.””

— Angela McGlowan

Tags: Angela McGlowan

❝❝There is an assumption underlying American politics and to a certain extent our discussions here. In order for you to win, in order for you to benefit, someone else if not everyone else must lose. Some call it dualism, some call it either/or, and some call it IS or IS NOT. It's The Law of the Excluded Middle (more or less) and it's usually a false premise.

Something doesn't have to be black OR white. Sometimes it can be sour. Or fuzzy. Or octagonal. By accepting two and only two qualifying conditions, you eliminate all other possibilities, even if those other possibilities may serve your needs better.

For example, Sarah Waggoner is very much caught up in dualism. Any criticism of Democrats means she must attack Trump or Republicans in general. The idea that someone can be critical of Democrats without being a Republican is outside her expectations and almost outside her world view.

Meanwhile, from my perspective the problem isn't Democrats or Republicans. Accepting either premise ignores the obvious (to me), that too much government is the core problem. As long as the discussion is about either Party Red or Party Blue, we don't talk about an ever expanding technocracy that consumes more and more even as it restricts freedom. You can't talk about the dangers of government until you stop talking about the misdeeds of whichever party. Dealing only with Republicans or Democrats means you never look too closely at the system.

By design

---

Still, your first reaction to any criticism of Democrats is to attack Trump or Republicans.

You've never seen me "discuss" things like religion, sex, or crony capitalism with Republicans. Not to mention the occasional person who insists that their morality must displace all other choices.

My default is KYFHO. Keep Your F…ing Hands Off!

The fact is (and one of your major issues) that I assume that most people are perfectly capable of making their own choices. I don't think that government should be involved in most things. I don't think that government is first, best, and last solution. I do not trust in the wisdom of government.

Outside of sex and top-down morality, yes, that matches the mainstream "Republican" position. More accurately, the mainstream "Republican" position matches some of the classic liberal position. And yes, there is a vast difference between modern liberals and classic liberals. As I've said, my opinions on religion, sex and top-down morality (and what is dooming our culture) put me outside the Republican mainstream and squarely in with what might be called Democrat positions. Again, more accurately the Democrat positions match some of classic liberal position positions. And since classic liberals had those positions first, well, the Republicans and Democrats stole from their betters.

I could give you a hundred and thirteen things that Trump has done wrong. But I don't see Trump as significantly worse (or better) than his predecessors. At the end of the day (or term), we still have an ever expanding government that is destroying liberty. I don't think we should have a country whose liberty depends on the whims of those "in charge" this week.

Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats both want to expand government, only with their people in charge. The goal is not the government. The goal is not the system. The goal is liberty. Everything else is extra.❞❞

Tags: philosophy ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ dualism ∙ Donald Trump ∙ goverment ∙ system

❝❝Let's fix problems caused by government with… more government!❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ problems

Let's start with the baseline.

Earth is approximately four and a half billion years old. The approximate span of human history is about ten thousand years. Recorded history is only about six thousand years or so.

That makes human history .0002% or so of the life of the planet.

Let's be generous and say that humans have been producing significant carbon emissions for about three hundred years. That's about three percent of human history and an amazingly minute speck of planetary history.

So no more "ten year deadlines," especially since the deadline is always ten years out.

Before we start examining what humans are pumping into the atmosphere, we need to measure what is happening to our temperature. It turns out that we can see that temperatures changes on Mars match some of the temperature changes on Earth. That means that Mars and Earth have to share the same modifier in at least some instances. The obvious candidate is the Sun.

The Earth's climate has shifted radically before, even before there were humans. We don't entirely understand what caused those shifts, which means we can't eliminate those reasons from our projections.

While increased carbon dioxide has been linked to temperature increases, we don't know if the temperature increases caused the carbon dioxide or if the carbon dioxide cause the temperature change. We do know that the carbon dioxide cascade effect used in some climate models has never been observed or proven in a laboratory. There is no "magic threshold" between acceptable carbon dioxide and unacceptable carbon dioxide. Based on what has been observed, if there is a causal relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature increase, it is probably linear and not logarithmic.

We do know that in the past there has been higher carbon dioxide without any long term effects except increased plant growth.

We don't know what causes climate change.

This is not an "all or nothing" situation. We can care for the World without placing control in the hands of politics and technocrats. We can reduce our waste. We can use water wisely. We can build to work with the Earth and climate instead of imposing our control.

It's our choice.

From what we've seen, we dare not trust government to care for the planet.

Tags: carbon cycle ∙ carbon dioxide ∙ climate change ∙ Earth ∙ Mars ∙ Sun ∙ waste ∙ water

Now let's change that phrasing that a bit.

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ woke ∙ kids ∙ Deport Racism ∙ let kids be kids

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ PragerU ∙ green new deal ∙ Alex Epstein ∙ abundance ∙ energy ∙ clean planet

❝❝The economic choices allowed by government to most American citizens are meant to control them, not to free them.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ choice ∙ control

❝❝Remember when I said that economics was about the flow of value? It's like piping water in a swamp. Yes, you can clean it up the water and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of water flowing around. The more water, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the water and taking away what used to be widely available.

Now let's change that phrasing that a bit.

Yes, you can clean it up the value and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of value flowing around. The more value, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the value and taking away what used to be widely available.

That's a whole new different perspective. Economic activity and free markets create more value. The flow of value and value in the wrong hands threatens the central systems and the elites. As the elites see it, their best interests are served by controlling value and directing it where they see problems. They want their choice to supersede the choices of others, particularly the unwashed masses who don't know when something is being done for the Greater Good.❞❞

Tags: economics ∙ value ∙ maxims ∙ choice ∙ greater good

❝❝Let's break the myth that government is the first, best, and last solution.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ myth ∙ government ∙ first best last ∙ solution

It always bothers people when I answer the implied question and not what they actually said.

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ corruption

It's not about abuse of power. It's not about moral failings.

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Computing Forever ∙ Story

I'm tired of being lectured to.

Tags: choice & consequence ∙ responsibility ∙ control of the system ∙ government ∙ winners or losers

❝❝Beer, cheese, and bread.

These things were discovered hundreds, perhaps thousands of years ago. We don't know exactly when. What we do know is that chemistry and science in general originated because someone wanted to make beer, cheese, and bread better.

Money, measurement and accounting in general started because someone tried to figure out how many goats their grain harvest was worth.

That doesn't even count fundamentals like fire or the wheel which are still basics of our science and technology today.

Science and technology use what works. When we find something that works better, we modify our science and technology.

And yes, economics in it's pure form is a science. The problem comes when we try to use economics to do things that it can't do well. Most of this is directly traceable to government interference in the exchange.

Economics describes the flow of value. We know how value moves as long as it isn't diverted. Rather than top-down "managing the system" and diverting (and diminishing value), I'd rather see new ideas in products and services. I'd rather see incremental improvements in technology than a clumsy effort to shift money by government edict. I'd rather see lower prices than tariffs protecting the "balance of payments."

---

No, the correct phrase is that when we find something that works better, we modify our science and technology. Sometimes it's an improvement, sometimes it is a dead end. Modify is appropriate, not improvement.

Your point is wrong. The poor are getting richer, in cash, opportunities, and in available goods (at a lower cost). Cell phones are dirt cheap. Grocery stores have a better selection and sell for lower relative prices.

There is a disparity between the rate of wealth growth of the rich and poor, but the majority of people are better off. But since that doesn't cost the poor, that's hardly a problem.

Are there problems with unemployment and low paying jobs? Yes, but it's not government's job to fix that. We know that when government tries to set prices or wages, things get worse.

You want specifics, then I will give you specifics. Cut taxes so that the combined (Federal, state, local) tax on anything is no more than ten percent. Do away with the income tax and it's reporting requirements. Prevent government from spending more than it takes in, possibly by punishing the legislators. I can give you hundreds more, but all of it is unimportant until taxes get cut way back AND government spends within it's means and no more.

If I say things that are correct and they don't fit your "mental image of the world," maybe that image isn't all that clear.

---

For American history, I usually work from about 1750 CE on. For Western civilization in general, I usually work from the age of Charlemagne or the Roman republic

Now, what you are talking about is the 20th Century. That just happens to be the century of American central banking, command economy, war as an industry, active intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, massive corporations mostly unbound by local laws, and the birth of "globalism." I put "globalism" in quotes because our "elites" don't mean opening up the world to trade and cultural exchange, they mean control. Specifically deciding what is and is not allowed under what circumstances.

I group these things together because they are closely and intimately related. These are also things that you are not supposed to pay attention to, indeed most of the media constantly tries to distract people from these things. It's just taken for granted that government is supposed to handle those things and we mere citizens aren't supposed to worry.

We're conditioned from birth to accept that government is the first, last, and best solution.

Plot the events and trend lines for yourself. Increase any of these six items and the impact falls mostly on the middle class and then the poor. These changes don't affect the rich as much as those trying to become rich. Changing your financial circumstances becomes harder. Indeed, a society that puts those six factors first "locks out changes," it resists any disruption from within the system. Usually the only change that can happen starts externally. For the elites, this is not a flaw, this is deliberate design.

So when I say that government is not your friend and when the solution to almost all widespread economic problems is to get government out of the picture, it's because I know what it has done.

The truly scary part is "helping the little guy" relies on more government intervention and control. Even though that is what hurt the them to begin with. Let's fix government… with more government!

The problem for the elites is that the economy can't be controlled, not even mostly. Remember when I said that economics was about the flow of value? It's like piping water in a swamp. Yes, you can clean it up the water and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of water flowing around. The more water, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the water and taking away what used to be widely available.

Now let's change that phrasing that a bit.

Yes, you can clean it up the value and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of value flowing around. The more value, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the value and taking away what used to be widely available.

That's a whole new different perspective. Economic activity and free markets create more value. The flow of value and value in the wrong hands threatens the central systems and the elites. As the elites see it, their best interests are served by controlling value and directing it where they see problems. They want their choice to supersede the choices of others, particularly the unwashed masses who don't know when something is being done for the Greater Good.

Build a system insulated from the free market that "controls" value and it will always serve the elites at the expense of everyone else. Manipulate the system, tinker with it, and the elites always come out ahead.

---

“When has an economist ever been right about anything?!”

Hernando de Soto. The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism. Almost any of the Chicago school of economics. But the politicos don't like a free market approach because it reduces their power and their ability to pick "winners" and "losers" in a national economy. Of course when things go wrong, that doesn't stop the politicos and pundits from blaming economics in general and the Chicago school specifically. Even if the politicos and technocrats did the exact opposite of what Chicago school of economics experts told them they needed to do.

---

Meteorology measures and predicts the weather within limits. No one expects meteorology to control the weather. Even in a massive internal environment like a skyscraper, no one uses the tools and techniques to of meteorology to control the "weather" except in the most basic ways. Meteorology is about understanding the weather, not controlling it.

Any meteorologist who told you that he could control the weather is either a fool or a con man.

Likewise, any meteorologist who claimed he could predict the wind by measuring the humidity isn't using the right tools.

---

The Other Path tells that story. de Soto was part of the international economics team brought in to advise to Chilean government how to grow their economy and how to deal with The Shining Path's promises. It's one of the best examples of practical economics and the Chicago school specifically.

---

A word of advice. Never argue practical economics with a small "L" libertarian.

---

A good economist isn't going to promise he can control the flow of value. What he can do is tell you that diverting value reduces value.

Value isn't something that can be generated by political dictate. You have to provide something that people want. Free market competition means that over time, goods and services become better, cheaper, and more widely distributed, even as the overall value flow increases. It's all based on choice without coercion. Voluntary exchanges between consenting adults.

When you get people who don't like the choices others make and see the coercive power of government as a way to change or stop those choices, that's when things get complicated. We effectively outlaw cannabis and cocaine, but nicotine and alcohol are only regulated. Sex is okay in marriage, but not as a commercial transaction. You can make a statue of a bare breasted Liberty leading the charge, but most American beaches require covered breasts.

The economic choices allowed by government to most American citizens are meant to control them, not to free them.❞❞

Tags: economics ∙ beer ∙ cheese ∙ bread ∙ chemistry ∙ science ∙ money ∙ measurement ∙ accounting ∙ wheel ∙ fire ∙ harvest ∙ trade ∙ technology ∙ value ∙ American history ∙ Western Civilization ∙ 20th Century ∙ central banking ∙ command economy ∙ war industry ∙ foreign policy ∙ corporations ∙ globalism ∙ media ∙ goverment ∙ Hernando de Soto ∙ Chicago school of economics ∙ Chile ∙ libertarian ∙ voluntary exchange ∙ consenting adults

The issue is not that Trump is a terrible president who abuses his power and the trust people have in him.

The people making the biggest noises about the abuse of government power looked the other way when Obamacare was passed. Or when Obama went after journalists. Or when the deep state went after Trump even before he was elected.

It's not about abuse of power. It's not about moral failings.

It's that a Republican is in office.

Tyranny is okay if it's YOUR GUY calling the shots. Your justification changes, but the issue is that someone else is running things. Freedom doesn't matter if it's the right people for the Greater Good.

GFY.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Republican ∙ abuse of power ∙ morality ∙ tyranny ∙ GFY

““By the democratic principles we espouse, government cannot have a right that citizens do not grant it. There are certain things that a person has no right to do. A person has no right to murder or rape another. Therefore, people cannot grant government authority to murder and rape. Similarly, no person has the right to forcibly take the property of one person in order to give it to another. Therefore, people cannot grant government authority to do the same thing. If I forcibly took property from one person, for any reason, most people would condemn it as theft, an immoral act. Theft or any other immoral act does not become moral because it is done by government acting on behalf of a consensus or majority vote just as murder or rape does not become a moral act simply because of a consensus or majority vote.””

— Walter E. Williams

Tags: Walter E. Williams ∙ government ∙ authority ∙ citizens ∙ murder ∙ rape ∙ theft ∙ consensus

““One cannot and must not try to erase the past merely because it does not fit the present.””

— Golda Meir

Tags: Golda Meir ∙ past ∙ present ∙ cross posted

“"It's obvious you idiot" doesn't cut it.”

Tags: maxims ∙ libertarian ∙ American ∙ personal freedom ∙ economic freedom ∙ responsibility ∙ government ∙ individual

❝❝A conservative tends to value economic freedom over personal freedom. Usually this means removing government obstacles to business while advocating a common moral belief system to join people together, even if someone has to sacrifice in the name of that system. In it's more extreme forms, that can mean dictating the personal behavior (and occasionally beliefs) of individuals through government actions. The bottom line and results take precedence over feelings.❞❞

— NeoWayland, Pagan•Vigil FAQ

Tags: maxims ∙ conservative ∙ government ∙ economic freedom ∙ common good

❝❝A modern liberal can range from what used to be called a "progressive" to socialist. Roughly speaking, a modern liberal is all for personal freedom but feels that economic freedom and opportunity should be controlled by government action so that everyone "benefits equally" in the name of "social justice." In it's more extreme forms, it can mean that good intentions and lofty goals are judged over results.❞❞

— NeoWayland, Pagan•Vigil FAQ

Tags: maxims ∙ modern liberal ∙ progressive ∙ socialist ∙ personal freedom ∙ economic freedom ∙ government ∙ equality ∙ social justice

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Styxhexenhammer666 ∙ liberal ∙ Donald Trump ∙ racist

❝❝The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek.

Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell.

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt.

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization by Charles Adams.

The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky.❞❞

Tags: Friedrich Hayek ∙ Thomas Sowell ∙ Henry Hazlitt ∙ Charles Adams ∙ Marvin Olasky

““Feminists never notice crimes like this, because “violence against women” doesn’t matter when it’s committed by Third World men.””

— Robert Stacy McCain, Death by Tourism

Tags: Robert Stacy McCain ∙ feminist ∙ crime ∙ violence ∙ women ∙ Third World ∙ men

Ocasio-Cortez’s Chief of Staff: Green New Deal About Changing Economy

““Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff for New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D.), said that the Green New Deal was not about the climate, but rather about tearing down the economy and building a new one, according to a report from The Washington Post.

"The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all," Chakrabarti said, according to the Post. "Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

Chakrabarti made the comments during a meeting with Sam Ricketts, the climate director for presidential candidate Jay Inslee.””
     — Graham Piro

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Graham Piro ∙ Mark Mills ∙ green new deal ∙ Nature ∙ Saikat Chakrabarti ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ Sam Ricketts ∙ Jay Inslee ∙ economy ∙ climate change

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Manhattan Institute ∙ solar power ∙ renewable ∙ nuclear power ∙ Mark Mills ∙ green new deal ∙ Nature

❝❝Public pressure had nothing to do with it. Like most great moments in American history, ordinary people chose the right thing and to hell with what the elected officials thought or did. Americans have been doing that for almost 250 years. It's a part of our mythology. How many of our great stories and films are about the underdog taking a stand and winning?❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ American ∙ history ∙ ordinary people ∙ right thing ∙ elected officials ∙ mythology ∙ underdog ∙ taking a stand

Physics of energy generation makes Polis’ 100 percent renewables goal unlikely

““Electric grids are complex networks and interconnections that rely on a steady supply of electricity, but that also must maintain extremely close control of the frequency of the alternating current.

America operates on 60 cycles per second, or 60 Hz. That grid frequency can vary only about 2 Hz in either direction, says Griffey. “These are small variations, but if it drops below that you start kicking off loads,” he said. “Bad things happen and your system crashes.”

The grid is so sensitive to these variations that power producers must provide both reserve capacity to deal with sudden load increases and “grid inertia” to keep the frequency stable.

“You have to have inertia on the system that helps buffer load changes, and inertia is provided by turbines that spin. Renewables don’t have inertia,” said Griffey.

Without the electrical inertia available from fuel-powered, constantly-spinning generators, the entire grid can crash unexpectedly if the wind stops blowing while the sun isn’t shining.

This means that renewables like wind and solar will always require backup generators to provide both inertia and reliable power to take up unexpected loads.

And how much backup is required increases with the amount of renewables in the system.

“The more intermittent capacity you have, or the more unreliable capacity you have, you actually have to increase that reserve margin to carry more backup,” Griffey said.

“In the case of an all-wind system you’re going to be carrying 90 percent, give or take, to back it up because [windmills] only provide 5 to 15% of equivalent capacity,” said Griffey.

By equivalent capacity Griffey means that the advertised theoretical capacity of a wind farm of say 30 megawatts, called the “nameplate capacity,” only ever actually produces a fraction of that amount, called the “efficiency factor.”

Other sources place the efficiency factor of wind generators between 25% and 40%.””
     — Scott Weiser

Tags: Scott Weiser ∙ clipping ∙ Charles Griffey ∙ electric grid ∙ alternating current ∙ 60 Hz ∙ reserve capacity ∙ renewable ∙ wind power ∙ solar power

Tags: Google ∙ Alphabet ∙ censorship ∙ judgement ∙ approval

Tags: Hong Kong ∙ China ∙ protest ∙ capitalism ∙ human rights ∙ City That Ate A Country

“Michael Lacey and James Larkin's website, Backpage.com was seized in April 2018 and they were arrested for allegedly facilitating prostitution. They have maintained their innocence, saying the publishing on their website, which included adult ads and general classifieds, is protected by the First Amendment.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ Michael Lacey ∙ James Larkin ∙ FOSTA ∙ Backpage.com ∙ prostitution ∙ First Amendment

❝❝"People of color" don't need me to make them victims, they are too busy doing it themselves.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ people of color ∙ victims

Public spectacle to bypass the law and suppress dissent.

Tags: abortion ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ gaming the system ∙ protest industry ∙ 2016 election ∙ climate change ∙ socialism ∙ victimhood ∙ racist ∙ protesters

❝❝HRC was not that likable as a candidate. The image of HRC appealed more than the actuality. She's many things, but she's not appealing, probably because she doesn't seem to connect on a personal level. That was something that Bill Clinton excelled at, and the lack in HRC just came off as disappointing.

---

My claim was that people relied on the polls so much that they couldn't be bothered to double check what was happening.

The election of HRC was already in confusion, not in the least because she manipulated the rules to deny anyone else the nomination. It wasn't the first time that people decided they didn't want her as a candidate. Even her election to the Senate wasn't so much winning as controlling the process to get her a Senate seat as a power base. Without that and without a big push from her husband, she couldn't make it as a candidate. As Bill Clinton's legacy became tainted and Democrats started avoiding him, HRC's "star power" faded.

I don't know why she avoided so many public appearances in 2016, although I suspect it's health issues that she never told people about. That certainly didn't help her.

You can blame Comey, you can blame the LEAKED emails, but HRC was never a strong candidate. She didn't even want to go up against Gore. She didn't dare go up against Bush League in 2004 because she was afraid she be washed up if she lost. In 2007, she got sold out by the Democrat leadership because they didn't want her in the White House. In thirty years, her reasons for running for President was that she was a woman, and it was time. Her whole strategy centered on victimhood while implying that she was owed the Presidency because Bill and others had done her wrong.❞❞

Tags: Hillary Clinton ∙ 2016 election ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ James Comey ∙ Al Gore ∙ George W Bush ∙ Bush League ∙ White House ∙ Democrats

Cross posted at www.teknopagan.com/files/Thorium190619.html

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ColdFusion ∙ thorium ∙ nuclear power ∙ cross posted

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ progressive ∙ Bernie Sanders ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ Yaron Brook ∙ Ayn Rand Institute ∙ poor ∙ private property ∙ profit ∙ individual ∙ permission ∙ industrial revolution ∙ running water ∙ electricity

❝❝Save us from the crusaders. “Here I come to save the day!”

Whatever form WestCiv and America specifically ends up with, you're still going to have to live with people who disagree and hate everything you stand for. You don't build communities by excluding people you don't like.

Crusading just means "your" side will win for a short while. And the the whole cycle starts again.

---

Unknown today. In his time, his writings were very well known and pretty influential. He wrote Our Enemy, the State among other things

I cited him in the first place is because a top down approach doesn't work for very long, if it works at all. People resent being told what to do, especially if you force them. I don't have a detailed plan because I don't think that any one person or any one group has all the answers. I think a big, big part of the problem is that we usually phrase our social problems in dualities, this or that. Dualities exclude other choices, it's all or nothing. So when I see phases like "save Western Civilization," it tells me that someone is reinforcing the original problem, not finding a solution.

No matter how good their plan may be, anything based on a dual choice and only a dual choice is doomed. That's the point that Nock tried to make in that article. People won't submit to Greater Authority for Their Own Good. The people you might convince won't listen until after the stuff hits the fan.

---

To start with, we could enforce the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment clearly outlaws most of the Federal government.

Given how little the Federal government pays attention to the Constitution and it's own laws, I don't think additional restrictions would work.

---

The Constitution was designed to rein in government. I'd encourage anyone interested to read the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers. Unless the power is specifically granted in the Constitution, the Federal government doesn't have it. Or at least it shouldn't.

The one time that the Constitution was amended to restrict the people was a disaster.

It wasn't until the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th that the public perception of limited government turned to expecting an activist government with virtually unlimited powers.

I don't care about SCOTUS in the 20th Century, I'm pretty sure that time travel causes unintended consequences.

---

See, I'm not sure if adding more government is the solution to bad government. Hmm, I might have said something like that before.

And I don't think trading insults is the way to go. Sometimes winning isn't nearly as important as keeping the other guy from reaching the goal.

---

Isn't adding things like term limits and engineering the constraints adding to government?

I wasn't talking about insulting the voters. Imagine a boxing match. Which shows more skill, the ability to take and dish out punch after punch? Or the ability not to get hit while letting the other guy hurt himself trying to hurt you?

Which leaves you better able to go to work after?

---

Yes, the Constitution is a restraint device. But it hasn't worked. Why should another work? This is where you lose me.

Whatever Trump may or may not be, what happens next? Trump is rare, most people can't fight dirty for an extended time. If the only structure we can build depends on fighting dirty for every advantage, how are we better off?

---

No, it hasn't, not for at least 85 years. Although I think a strong case can be made that it hasn't more than a century. What we've been living under is the illusion that the Constitution is working and that more government is a good thing.

I've argued that term limits are meaningless when the major parties control who gets on the ballot. I've also argued that primary elections divert attention away from the real stakes. CGP Grey has a great video explaining why first part the post voting is not a good thing.

I keep returning to this because I think it is critical. We've been indoctrinated for generations to think that the way to fix a corrupt system is through system management. We've moved beyond the black mold stage, the pieces are so radioactive that using them not only risks our health but also could contaminate any new pieces we add. The benefits of "playing the system" and exploiting others and yes, even fighting dirty and ugly so outweigh long term thinking that there are actually severe disincentives to a long term IPD.

Case in point, and this one isn't even a libertarian thing. The US has more military bases in more foreign nations than any other power in history. Our military spending is bigger than the next thirty nations combined. We actively discourage other nations from establishing their own bases. We meddle in their internal affairs and throw hissy fits when people from other nations buy advertising aimed at our own elections. We bully others and tell ourselves that we fight the really bad bullies "for the little guy."

Why?

Do you think that Trump would stand down? Maybe close ten percent of our overseas bases? Do you think that American intervention leads to a safer world? Would you accept it if other nations did the same to the US?

Why is it bad when the deep state does it, but OK when Trump uses the same tools?

---

You misunderstand. I'm waiting for the system to rip itself apart. I don't have to work actively against it, I just don't have to patch it up or compensate for it's failure.

One area we do disagree is that the right is somehow more moral than the left. Another is that a system controlled by the right is preferable to one controlled by the left. The right gave us the USA PATRIOT Act, and the left gave us Obamacare. Hard to say at this point which has done the most damage. As for Trump, well, trade and tariffs alone are balanced on a knifeblade between what might possibly work if we are extremely lucky and what might cause disaster so epic as to make the Great Depression and World War II look like last Tuesday.

---

It's not the voters I don't trust. I don't trust the "options" the voters are allowed to have. You can have your left arm or your right leg cut off, but you must choose one.

I'm willing to let my principles compete without the coercion of the state or what is "morally right." That's more than either the right or the left want, they want to hold a gun to people's heads for Your Own Good.

The right is self-limiting? The War on Drugs. Too big to fail. An ongoing overseas war that for the first time in American history, has soldiers fighting who weren't even born when it started.

While I marginally prefer conservatives, no one and certainly no institution gets a pass because of the label. Branding is a horrific way to govern. What have you done for me lately?

---

The duality is an illusion. More accurately the duality is a condition required for the system to work. But that doesn't mean the system is a good idea or the best idea. Yet that duality by it's nature locks us into either/or and calls it the best choice.

The system wants us to choose the best baseball team when I want to swim.

My problem is that I see statists on "both" sides, and the right is no less threatening than the left. Your premise is that the right is a better choice and my premise is that statists (any statists) threaten freedom.❞❞

Tags: Western Civilization ∙ America ∙ disagree ∙ crusade ∙ Albert Jay Nock ∙ top down ∙ dualism ∙ Constitution ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ restraint ∙ government ∙ Federalist papers ∙ Anti-Federalist papers ∙ SCOTUS ∙ progressive ∙ solution ∙ Donald Trump ∙ term limits ∙ primary election ∙ CGP Grey ∙ first past the post ∙ system management ∙ milirarist ∙ right ∙ Left ∙ voters ∙ statist

❝❝If you teach people to only take power from their victimhood, all you're really doing is teaching them to stay victims.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ power ∙ victimhood ∙ victims

❝❝I also greet the sunrise every day that I can. That's something I learned from my Baptist deacon grandfather. Granted, I do it with a bit more ceremony than he ever did. He was content to do it from the front porch with a cup of coffee.

Oh, and I've been known to dance naked in the light of a full Moon.

You can't embarrass me for following rites and rituals, anymore than you can embarrass a Christian for taking communion or an orthodox Jew for keeping kosher. My faith isn't my politics, and it doesn't matter to me what others think about it. It's between me and the Divine.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: cross posted ∙ maxims ∙ sunrise ∙ grandfather ∙ Baptist ∙ ceremonial ∙ dance naked ∙ full Moon ∙ rites and rituals ∙ Christian ∙ communion ∙ Jew ∙ kosher ∙ faith ∙ Divine

❝❝Abortion is not about women's rights.

Yes, I know most here do not agree. But there are two things you must consider. First, it's not a right unless the other person has it too. Which means that "reproductive rights" just excluded half the population. Now, that doesn't mean I am saying no abortions. I'm just pointing out that abortion is not a right, any more than designer shoes.

Second, not all women think that abortion is a right. You can denounce them, you call call them misguided, but they don't agree that abortion is a right.

Finally, before you complain about judicial decisions, remember that Roe vs. Wade was a judicial decision that circumvented existing law.

---

And as I told you before, "these people" see it as a matter of preserving human life. The "opening bid" was Roe vs. Wade. I don't agree with them on everything, but let's get the timeline right.

Like it or not, the rights of the fetus are a part of the discussion. As are the rights of the father. Reproductive "rights" can't trump that, but reproductive privilege certainly does.

If this were a matter of rape, you might have a point. But sex is still (mostly) a consensual activity.

---

Their passions and their beliefs are just as strong as yours are. They aren't going to accept defeat quietly, anymore than you would.

While neither you nor they will admit it, the other side has some truth.

And in case you hadn't noticed, you have damn little power over your health care now. The left isn't blameless and totally virtuous in this matter, and I wish we would stop pretending that they are. Government is government and power over is power over. No matter how noble the motives, no matter how much it's for the common good, it still takes away choice.

---

Practically every reason that healthcare is messed up is because of government interference. Whether it is special perks and privileges extended to major pharma firms, or the approval period for new drugs and procedures, or Medicare and Medicaid setting prices for procedures and treatment while exploding costs far beyond inflation, or the active suppression of nurse practitioners, or screwing up insurance so badly that people have no idea what they are paying for or if it would be cheaper not to go through their insurance, the list goes on and on.

It doesn't help that every government fix involves more government.

And why do people keep raising the issue of rape when it comes to women's medical care?

Just to point out the obvious, both Republicans and Democrats have turned women's bodies into battlegrounds where there can be no compromise.

---

*sighs* The original stat for American women was one in five women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. Abused, not necessarily raped. It's also not accurate.

I don't accept your premise of either/or.

Nor do I accept that sex and abortion are tied to rape. Funny, I don't think that most relationships have to be about who has the power.

If you don't think that Democrats exploit women's bodies, then why is it so important to denounce the women who don't agree?

---

The original study was the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, a division of the Justice Department. Here's what two of the authors had to say:

““As two of the researchers who conducted the Campus Sexual Assault Study from which this number was derived, we feel we need to set the record straight. Although we used the best methodology available to us at the time, there are caveats that make it inappropriate to use the 1-in-5 number in the way it’s being used today, as a baseline or the only statistic when discussing our country’s problem with rape and sexual assault on campus.

Second, the 1-in-5 statistic includes victims of both rape and other forms of sexual assault, such as forced kissing or unwanted groping of sexual body parts—acts that can legally constitute sexual battery and are crimes. To limit the statistic to include rape only, meaning unwanted sexual penetration, the prevalence for senior undergraduate women drops to 14.3%, or 1 in 7 (again, limited to the two universities we studied).””

— timeDOTcom/3633903/campus-rape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-setting-record-straight/

Until someone else mentioned it, I deliberately avoided mentioning rape. I specifically talked about sex, responsibility, and abortion. A casual reading of some of the other responses here (including yours) would seem to excuse a woman's responsibility before the fact because of, you know, rape. Maybe I'm just being extra dense here, but it seems like the only reason rape is introduced into the discussion mentioned is to specifically excuse women from responsibility.

When someone starts offering two and only two alternatives, that's the cue to look for the fourth, fifth, and sixth choices.

There are conservative women who disagree with you on abortion. Why aren't they a part of the discussion?

Why should your morality and choices govern the actions of another? Isn't that what you say would happen if conservatives "win?"

One other thing. Roe vs. Wade. Decided by eight old, rich white dudes and one rich, old black dude.

---

“You can't circumvent the topic of rape when discussing abortion.”

Why not? Are all or most women raped? Do all or most abortions happen because of rape? Why is it so very very necessary to make this part of the discussion when rape is not usually the reason for abortion?

Again, I am not saying that abortion should be illegal. I am saying that it is more than just the woman involved. I am not arguing over the definition of life. I am not dragging out charts and pictures to show a fetal heartbeat or how it responds to touch at what point in the pregnancy. I am saying that abortion is not a right when it excludes the man. And at a certain point (which I have no idea what is), the fetus.

If you want men to act responsibly, that means their sex partners should too. That means that yeah, women should think about consequences before sex. That means that if abortion is an option, it should happen before the last trimester and probably before the second. And yes, that means that the man should be involved in the decision. If they aren't, then men are just being encouraged to be irresponsible.

Just like what is happening now.

The default is for the man NOT to be involved. The default is for the man to ignore the consequences. Claim that only the woman can choose, and the man doesn't have to choose.

That's why abortion as it is now is not a right.

---

I am not denying that rape happens, although I do not think it is nearly as common in America as some claim.

I just think that always discussing rape when talking about abortion doesn't do your argument any good. As it is, based on what you say abortions should be performed if the woman was raped and never for any other reason.

Yes, I am arguing. I am saying that abortion isn't a right if even the discussion doesn't have to include the man. And the man is not usually or even mostly a rapist.

That's it.

Everything else is something that others have tried to hang on me.

---

*shrugs* Your choice has reduced this to either/or.

Here's the inevitable result. You can imprison them and/or kill them, or they can imprison/kill you. Force rules. Might makes right. Submission must happen. Power over, now and forever.

Is that what you want?

---

*shrugs*

Like I said, reproductive privilege excludes the man. And if a woman excludes the man from the choice, then he has no reason to be responsible. “He is literally just a donor of genetic material…”

---

Who said I didn't consider women as human beings?

I'm a guy who believes the aunts and grandmothers theory of history.

I seek the Divine in every lady I meet. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. Sometimes it's my fault, sometimes not. I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. She learned it from her grandmother, the strongest woman I've ever known (www.neowaylandDOTcom/files/StrongWoman170330.html).

Why do you assume that because I dissent on some things I would throw you to the Christian patriarchy?

Why are you measuring somebody's strength by something granted by politicos?

Again, I haven't said no abortions. I've just said that if it's only the woman's choice, then it's not a right.

---

For the last fifty years or so, American men have lost rights when it comes to children. Somehow the discussion about abortion always includes vague allegations of rape and domestic violence as if most men did terrible things to women.

Most men don't do these things. We're not guilty, we shouldn't be blamed for what we didn't do and are not likely to do. The presumption of guilt should not shape relationships and sex.

Even now, you are escalating. The discussion started about abortion. Then domestic violence got added. Then rape. And now you added murder.

Everybody shares a right. Privileges exclude people. Only some get privileges. Privileges are not rights, and rights are not privileges.

Now I am not talking about rape, I am not talking about domestic violence. I am not talking about what happened 100 years ago or last week in France.

What I am saying is that if the baseline of social behavior now means that a man will not be involved the decision to have an abortion, then it is a privilege, not a right

---

You keep assuming that I have their beliefs.

I don't.

I'm saying that it is not about rights when only one person is allowed to decide.

---

Then if the man's desires don't count, does that mean they don't owe child support?

---

"Want" doesn't have anything to do with it.

Accepting responsibility does.

But not if they are denied the choice.

---

Then give me numbers instead of allegations.

At the same time, I'll point out that by excluding men from the decision, they never have to be responsible. Under the circumstances, the surprise is not that some men flake out. It's that others don't.

---

It's not just "men" who have this opinion. That's the point. Women don't all agree with you and it's foolish to pretend that they do.

My first sex rule is "Consenting adults only.". The first derivation of that is "Your desire does not control another's choice."

I absolutely agree that children need happy families. I also think they need male and female role models, but that is another discussion.

I think the power and the responsibility doesn't just lie with men.

---

I do know that for a while, CA had a law that if the mother published the name of a man she claimed was the father a certain number of times, that man was obligated to pay support even if genetic testing showed there was no relationship. I know a few guys who got caught in that trap.

---

I am not saying most women are irresponsible.

I am saying that having sex without considering the consequences with your partner is irresponsible.

I'm saying that our "system" of excluding men from the decision about abortion encourages men to be irresponsible and guilt free.

Do I think that birth control is a good thing? Yes.

Do I think that abortion is a right? No, not if it doesn't include the man.

Do I think that late term abortion is a good thing? Definitely not in the third trimester and I would question any that happen in the second.

Do I think that men can be unfeeling jerks more concerned with their own pleasure than their partner's feelings? Yes, especially if they are not held responsible for their actions. If the man isn't allowed to talk about abortion with his partner, why should he care? That is the society we live in. He's encouraged to think it's the woman's fault if she gets pregnant.

The hook-up culture certainly hasn't helped. If the guy doesn't have to work at seduction, why should he pay attention to her feelings?

I still don't think that rape should be part of the discussion about abortion because most abortions happen without rape. The only reason I can see for treating rape as the norm for abortions is to silence criticism about abortion.

If you want to shut people out of the conversation for whatever reason, that is your choice. Just don't expect them to accept your "rights."

If you want to blame all of this on men, that's your choice too. But most of them will resent you for it because they didn't do what you are accusing them of.

So that's where we are. Because I said abortion wasn't a right, you've said I am anti-woman and a bad Pagan and a bad person. But I've not prevented abortions. I've not voted against abortion. I'm not arguing against abortion. All I've said is that abortion is not a right. I haven't tried to turn back the clock.

If you really want to fight what's happening in these states, you're going to have to find a justification other than the "right to an abortion." I'm being honest with you. I'm not attacking you and I am certainly not attacking women as a group. I am telling truth. It's what I do.❞❞

Tags: abortion ∙ reproductive rights ∙ privilege ∙ women ∙ fetus ∙ man ∙ rape ∙ health care ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ sex ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ Christian ∙ patriarchy ∙ American ∙ presumed guilty ∙ domestic violence ∙ murder ∙ sex rules

❝❝If the American government were a car, you would have patched three tires, overhauled the transmission, replaced the electrical system, and washed the windows. Meanwhile it still leaks oil and has a disturbing habit of catching fire every once in a while.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments on Progressives collude to prevent investigation of attempted coup

Tags: maxims ∙ car

““None of these companies has a problem operating in European countries with much more restrictive abortion laws than those in the US, nor Arab nations which ban it outright. Disney has a resort in China, not a country known for its liberal approach to human rights. But apparently Georgia is now beyond the pale.””

— Tim Newman, Personae non gratae

Tags: Tim Newman ∙ Georgia ∙ Europe ∙ Arab ∙ China ∙ Disney ∙ abortion ∙ human rights

Tags: memes ∙ picture ∙ anonymous

““Marx is a dead white male!””

— anonymous

Tags: anonymous ∙ Karl Marx ∙ dead white male

❝❝Let's break the myth that government is the first, best, and last solution.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ first ∙ best ∙ and last solution

❝❝The allegations against Trump described the Clintons' behavior.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ allegations ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ behavior

““Everywhere she goes, evil men die, and we cheer her for it. And she grows more sure that she is good and right. She believes that her destiny is to build a better world for everyone. If you believed it; if you truly believed it, would you not kill anyone who came between you and paradise?””

— Game of Thrones

Tags: Game of Thrones ∙ good ∙ right ∙ evil ∙ cheer ∙ destiny ∙ better world ∙ kill ∙ paradise

❝❝Trump's one virtue is that he's a disruptor.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Donald Trump ∙ virtue ∙ disrupt

““In the event of a flat tire feminism will be suspended until a man has changed the tire.””

— Kirby McCain

Tags: Kirby McCain ∙ flat tire ∙ feminism

Then I choose not to follow a Biblical morality.

Tags: Biblical morality ∙ Old Testament ∙ Decalogue ∙ Christians ∙ Jews ∙ New Testament ∙ Jesus ∙ John ∙ costs ∙ benefits ∙ submit ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ government ∙ moral justification ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ Biblical authority

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ Alyssa Milano ∙ sex ∙ sex strike ∙ Georgia ∙ Ohio ∙ feminist ∙ abstinence ∙ conservatives

❝❝Democrats have been fear mongering too. Especially since Trump announced.

I'm not going to say who is right or wrong, but I am going to point out that both major parties have done fear mongering over decades. If that is one behavior you're questioning, you should ask why is it bad when "They" do it and good when "We" do it?

I too get tired of the dualism. But I don't see it limited to one party.

My blocked follower on this site would tell you that I am oversimplifying. I don't think I am. Both parties do it. Both parties are contributing to the problem. Both have media allies who sing their praises.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from Pagan Community Notes: Religious harassment at Florida Gathering, Calif. school removes Bible verse, and more!

Tags: maxims ∙ fear ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ Donald Trump ∙ right ∙ wrong ∙ They ∙ We ∙ dualism ∙ media allies

Two criticisms of my libertarian ideas is that they are juvenile and too simple.

I'm frequently told by conservatives, “I used to be libertarian but I grew out of it.”

Let's not forget “The world doesn't work like that. We have to live in the real world.”

Is this really how the World works? Or is this how the self-appointed “experts” want you to think how the World works?

Let's take the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Remember that the Constitution limits government, not people.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So is there anything there about barrel length, how big the magazine is, or if it's a scary black color or not?

It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that every Federal gun law violates the Second Amendment.

Yes, that reading is subject to interpretation. By experts determined to prove that their expertise should trump your common sense.

Don't you believe me? Toss in the Tenth.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Taken together, it's hard to dispute that every Federal gun law is invalid. Nothing about using guns only for hunting. Nothing about gun registries or background checks. Nothing about which guns can be sold to what people.

And that raises some interesting questions. Because if the experts are overcomplicating gun laws and regulations to get around the Constitution, what else might they be doing?

Except for the much abused interstate commerce clause, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Federal government power and authority over medications or intoxicants.

There is nothing that gives the Federal government power and authority over education.

There is nothing that gives the Federal government power and authority over banking, stock markets, and commodity markets.

Chances are if the Federal government claims authority over speech, elections, commerce, it doesn't have it.

So why do we think it does?

Because that's what the politicos, the technocrats, and the experts have told us.

The people don't benefit from complications. The experts do.

Let's make this basic. You know what a car should do. You know that the more extras you throw in, the more expensive the car is to own and operate. You know that a more expensive car is harder to design and is full of trade-offs. That last boost in performance is the most expensive. So you have to make a choice. Do you want something reliable that you can afford, or do you want to impress people?

Make it legislation instead of a car and that is the choice of the average Congress critter.

Do you want something that can do the job, or do you want to make yourself look important?

Experts complicate things that should be simple.

Tags: libertarian ∙ juvenile ∙ simple ∙ experts ∙ Federal government ∙ Constitution ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ legislation ∙ 2nd Amendment ∙ 10th Amendment

I've started using my long dormant Twitter account. There's nothing exciting there, just "political soundbites." I don't intend to follow anyone or comment on their tweets. I'm going to use Twitter my way.

Tags: Twitter

Hi there. I'm called NeoWayland and I'm libertarian. That means I think there is too much government.

I'm not a Trump supporter. I don't like him, I don't trust him, and I don't think he's good for liberty or the country. But I've also been watching the man for a long, long time. There's an exchange in the original Pirates of the Caribbean film.

““You are without doubt the worst pirate I've ever heard of.””

““But you have heard of me.””

And that's where we are, folks. Trump may be the worst president you ever heard of. But you have heard of him. And he plays the press better than almost anyone else on the planet.

Think about it, Trump has made several careers over several decades doing exactly that. He keeps turning bad press into press for his goals. Then he gets most of what he wants. He plays the long shots, more often than not he gets the payoff. Trump has spent his life turning obstacles and adversity into triumphs.

No, I don't like him. No, I don't trust him. But I can't deny Trump's success. The orange hair clown is a distraction. He plays a character to divert your attention, but underneath there is a first class operator and a pretty good executive.

Any of this is obvious to any one who bothered to do the research. That brings us up to just before the 2016 election.

You don't have to take my word for it, do some digging. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama conspired to make HRC President. I'm not going to go over the shenanigans and rules lawyering that leveled the opposition in their party. It has it's roots in the superdelegates, and you don't need my instructions on how to clean your own house.

But HRC decided to go one step further. She decided that she needed a Republican clown to defeat. She picked Donald Trump. Without doing her homework, she bought into the image that he'd been selling for decades. HRC called in some favors. With Obama's help, Hillary set up a backup plan using ideas that have been very successful for the Democrats in the past. They tried to set up a false narrative that would give Democrats Absolute Moral Authority to denounce Trump and all Republicans for all time.

Or at least for the next eight years.

Yes, you read that right. Hillary Clinton picked Donald Trump to lose the election. And she called in every political marker she had to make sure he got the Republican nomination.

Hillary Clinton did not do her homework. Nobody in her camp did. They forgot that Trump turns adversity into advantage.

This isn't the first time Democrats have relied on false narratives. The Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Republicans were responsible for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act over strong Democrat opposition. But because Republicans did not give special privilege and recognition to the designated victim class, they were "racist." In the public perception, "equal rights" got redefined into preferential treatment. But only for certain groups.

The later waves of feminism are way too complicated to untangle here. Feminism changed into a variation of the same theme. Preferential treatment AND special privilege on demand and as defined by certain very vocal women who claimed to speak for all. If a Republican politico did not support that instantly and without question, well, naturally they were misogynist and anti-woman. Never mind that the definitions constantly changed, or that the "rights" weren't always practical or even possible. No, certain women had to have what they demanded when they demanded and without consequence. Or the Republicans were keeping women down.

And then there is climate change. I've dealt with it extensively elsewhere. It doesn't use science, it uses the politics of victimhood. And you are not allowed to dissent.

There are other false narratives. But these are big ones from the Democrats. Republicans have their own, but I'm not going into those here.

Since at least the 1970s, Democrats have relied on the The Big Lie to manufacture narratives giving Absolute Moral Authority to denounce Republicans. Sometimes I wonder if the Democrat and progressive elites have forgotten how to do anything else.

And that brings us to the 2016 election aftermath. There was the narrative, Trump had colluded with Russians to steal the election. He was a traitor and a fool. All his supporters were uneducated and unsophisticated saps who Trump had exploited. Surely the virtuous Democrats could prevail against Orange Man Bad.

This time there was a difference. Any Trump watcher could tell you that Trump wasn't a politician. Most especially Trump wasn't the usual Republican politico who avoided political conflict in the name of bipartisanship. He couldn't be shamed or guilted into anything. Go after Trump publicly and he would hit back harder than you ever dreamed. Later he might call you up after and invite you to dinner and drinks, but that was after the hand was played.

This was Trump's background before he was elected.

And after? He was the Chief Executive. He just cleaned house a bit, put the right people in place at the right time, and was patient. He trusted in the American people and the rule of law. That law was on his side. All Trump had to do was the right thing. Talk about irony.

It could have been different if Democrats had gone after Trump for things he actually had done. Eminent domain abuses come to mind.

But no, everything was bet on one spin of the wheel. Democrats forgot that Trump built casinos. A well-run house never loses as long as it obeys the law and doesn't mess with the odds too much. All he had to do was the right thing.

Trump didn't "win" this one because of his virtue. He won this one because he played by the official rules. Not the unspoken rules that Washington has been using, but the actual official ones based in law and the faith of the American people. Because the Democrat elites didn't play by those rules, it gave Trump the Moral Authority to do what comes next. Not Absolute Moral Authority, but none of the Democrat leadership can challenge Trump when he goes after those who tried to take him down. Just for doing his job, Trump is going to be that much stronger in 2020.

So the Democrats are discredited.

If there is one piece of advice I hope you take from this, it's that you need to abandon the false narratives. Be true to your beliefs. By all means call Republicans out for breaking their word, but do the same for your own leadership. Don't look the other way because somebody famous claims to support your goals. Words matter, actions matter more, intentions don't. Don't take their word for it, see what they actually do.

If you are going to claim moral authority, you need to be true to your own morality.

Tags: ☆ ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ virtue ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Republicans ∙ Demorcrats ∙ goverment

Not what they wear, not who they live with, not what they eat, not what happens in the bedroom, not what they read, not how they do it, and not who they do it with.

Tags: Christians ∙ conservative ∙ religion ∙ Christianity ∙ maxims ∙ monotheism ∙ uniform rule of law ∙ neither help nor hinder ∙ freedom of religion ∙ live & let live

““My father may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution.””

— Elliott Roosevelt

Tags: Elliott Roosevelt ∙ FDR ∙ IRS ∙ weapon ∙ retribution

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ GrayStillPlays ∙ Citystate ∙ anarchy ∙ lawless ∙ game ∙ simulator ∙ rule of law ∙ responsibility ∙ libertarian ∙ anarchism

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ John Stossel ∙ City Journal ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ Green New Deal ∙ United States ∙ carbon emmissions ∙ James Meigs ∙ Mark Mills ∙ Popular Mechanics ∙ Manhattan Institute ∙ wind power ∙ solar power

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ CBS ∙ social media ∙ Donald Trump ∙ violence ∙ Mar-a-Lago ∙ Nazis ∙ white nationalism

❝❝Just to point out the obvious, previously language changed without being mandated or legally sanctioned or morally correct. It worked because people used it and decided that it worked.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ language ∙ mandated ∙ legally ∙ sanctioned ∙ correct ∙ worked ∙ pronouns ∙ transgender

““He.” “She.” “They.” Have you ever given a moment’s thought to your everyday use of these pronouns? It has probably never occurred to you that those words could be misused. Or that doing so could cost you your business or your job – or even your freedom. Journalist Abigail Shrier explains how this happened and why it's become a major free speech issue.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ PragerU ∙ pronouns ∙ Abigail Shrier

From FreedomToons

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ FreedomToons ∙ libertarian ∙ government ∙ debunk

You seem to think I am defending the Republican Party.

Tags: Republican ∙ Democrat ∙ Donald Trump ∙ ibertarian Party ∙ government solutions ∙ last resort ∙ Keating Five ∙ John McCain ∙ Barry Goldwater

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ John McWhorter ∙ Columbia University ∙ linguist ∙ Jussie Smollett ∙ Donald Trump ∙ antiracism ∙ original sin ∙ noble victim ∙ victimhood ∙ white privilege

Chapter One - War Is A Racket
Chapter Two - Who Makes The Profits?
Chapter Three - Who Pays The Bills?
Chapter Four - How To Smash This Racket!
Chapter Five - To Hell With War!

Chapter One - War Is A Racket

War is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people -- not those who fight and pay and die -- only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

“And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. . . . War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it.”

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war -- anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war -- a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit -- fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people -- who do not profit.

Chapter Two - Who Makes The Profits?

The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits -- ah! that is another matter -- twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent -- the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket -- and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people -- didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump -- or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company -- and you can't have a war without nickel -- showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public -- even before a Senate investigatory body.

But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought -- and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it -- so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches -- one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.

Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 -- count them if you live long enough -- was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them -- a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers -- all got theirs.

Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment -- knapsacks and the things that go to fill them -- crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them -- and they will do it all over again the next time.

There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.

One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.

Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.

The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up -- and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.

It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee -- with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator -- to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.

Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses -- that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.

There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.

Chapter Three - Who Pays The Bills?

Who provides the profits -- these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them -- in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us -- the people -- got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par -- and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men -- men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement -- the young boys couldn't stand it.

That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead -- they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded -- they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too -- they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam -- on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain -- with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

But don't forget -- the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share -- at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.

Napoleon once said,

“All men are enamored of decorations . . . they positively hunger for them.”

So by developing the Napoleonic system -- the medal business -- the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side . . . it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies . . . to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."

Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill . . . and be killed.

But wait!

Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance -- something the employer pays for in an enlightened state -- and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

Then, the most crowning insolence of all -- he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back -- when they came back from the war and couldn't find work -- at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly -- his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too -- as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.

And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.

Chapter Four - How To Smash This Racket!

Well, it's a racket, all right.

A few profit -- and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation -- it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted -- to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages -- all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers -- yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders -- everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn't they?

They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket -- that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people -- those who do the suffering and still pay the price -- make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant -- all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war -- voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms -- to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide -- and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

1. We must take the profit out of war.


2. We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.


3. We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

Chapter Five - To Hell With War!

I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

Money.

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

“There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money . . . and Germany won't.

So . . . ”

Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war -- even the munitions makers.

So...I say,

TO HELL WITH WAR!

Tags: guest content ∙ Smedley Butler ∙ war ∙ racket ∙ WWI ∙ taxes ∙ depression ∙ soldier ∙ France ∙ Russia ∙ Italy ∙ Austria ∙ Yugoslavia ∙ Hungary ∙ Czechoslovakia ∙ Mussolini ∙ facism ∙ Hitler ∙ Germany ∙ Dollfuss ∙ Europe ∙ Orient

““The childlike moral binary: only people who hold the all correct positions merit empathy or respect.””

— Dorian Lynskey, 2:50 AM - 2 Apr 2019

Tags: Dorian Lynskey ∙ moral binary ∙ merit ∙ empathy ∙ respect

““Taxation is the fuel of war.””

— L. Neil Smith

Tags: L. Neil Smith ∙ taxation ∙ fuel ∙ war

Journalists Matt Taibbi and Aaron Maté explain how the Russiagate narrative helped Trump

““A sad irony is that the Russiagate narrative, which so many people clung to in an attempt to bring down Trump, only helped him. Actual occurrences that could have undermined Trump’s authority and damaged his reputation were ignored as much of the media and political class focused almost exclusively on a literal conspiracy theory that does not resonate with the voter base that stayed home on Election Day or the Obama-to-Trump voters. Surely, Trump has done awful things, coverage of which could get out the vote and galvanize opposition. But the Russiagate obsession perpetuated Trump’s narrative about being picked-on by a media that peddles fake news and a political elite that represents the status quo. Trump was able to come off, once again, as the outsider who takes on the establishment, which in turn persecutes him. And now that the Mueller report has said he didn’t collude with Russia, he’s celebrating.””
     — Katie Halper

Tags: clipping ∙ Katie Halper ∙ Matt Taibbi ∙ Aaron Maté ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Russiagate

““Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty one percent can vote away the rights of the other forty nine.””

— Thomas Jefferson

Tags: Thomas Jefferson ∙ democracy ∙ mob rule

The internet is the last, best hope for freedom. And the European Union can't stand that idea.

Tags: Benjamin Franklin ∙ democracy ∙ vote ∙ wolves ∙ lamb ∙ dinner

❝❝The perception and focus of the Democrat party is that there are groups who have been disenfranchised by society at large and that it is time to "get theirs." It's not about rights, it's about the politics of victimhood. Interests aren't addressed, certainly not in a larger context of all rights for all people. It's about slights and injustices, even if those have to be manufactured.

Say what you want about Republicans (and I often say a lot), at least they don't define rights in terms of politically approved sub-groups to exploit victimhood and the divisions between people.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from That time when Democrats were responsible for low Black unemployment

Tags: maxims ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ disenfranchising ∙ rights ∙ victimhood ∙ injustice

❝❝If the mainstream media spent one tenth the effort looking at Democrat misconduct that it does looking for Republican misconduct, the nation would be far better off.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ tweeted ∙ mainstream media ∙ effort ∙ Democrat ∙ misconduct ∙ Republican ∙ nation

Tags: video ∙ Computing Forever ∙ internet ∙ European Union ∙ Article 11 ∙ Article 13 ∙ last best hope

““It's not necessary—and certainly not helpful to public discourse—to take a gratuitous swipe at the other side almost every time you share your political perspective. Maybe your view isn't that great if it can't stand on its own.””

— Justin Amash (@justinamash), March 25, 2019

Tags: Justin Amash ∙ public discourse

❝❝I'm not going to talk about Trump and his failings or if he is substantially worse than the other presidents.

What I am going to talk about (again) is that all these efforts to nail Trump show that the Federal government has too much power and that rogue elements and actors are not held accountable.

Yes, Trump's office was bugged. But that is just part of a surveillance state that has been in turbo boost since 9-11. And 9-11 isn't a good excuse, it just codified and focused secret plans that had been drifting around since the 1970s.

The issue is not Trump. The issue is not the Republicans. The issue is not the Democrats. These ongoing struggles over which party is on the side of the angels and public perception over crimes and misdeeds, that's just the distraction. While we're arguing over who did what, there are unelected and unaccountable elements in government and high finance who are taking power and freedom away from you.

No, you didn't win. The game hasn't stopped. We are still being screwed. And the next bit will make this look like robbing a kid's lemonade stand.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Federal government ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ distraction ∙ tweeted

““It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.””

— Ron Paul, End the Fed

Tags: Ron Paul ∙ central banking ∙ total war

❝❝Islam is a faith. Criticism of Islam is not racism.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ islam ∙ faith ∙ criticism ∙ racism ∙ tweeted

❝❝You're making unjustified assumptions.

Is the climate crisis a thing? To some (like most pagans), yes. To others like (not conservative) me, no. It's an article of faith, not far removed from monotheism or forgiveness of sin. The issue is that because of the alarmism, those who believe in the climate crisis don't tolerate dissent because of the "urgency" of the problem.

At their best, American Christian conservatives are extremely community minded. A child lost in the woods? They are there looking. Death in the family? Somebody is bringing meals by. The problem is who they identify as being part of the community. Something that is not helped by some like pagans setting themselves outside the acknowledged community.

Most claims of conservative racism are because the conservatives involved didn't see any reason to grant special privilege when people already had rights recognized by law. It doesn't help when conservatives are routinely accused of white supremacy simply for being the wrong skin color regardless of their words and actions. There is a vast difference between not supporting the claims of groups like BLM and being racist. Because conservatives (and libertarians too) see rights as individual and not collective, the idea of identity politics is repugnant. You have rights because you are human, not because you are Hispanic, female, wore a pink hat in a march, or consider yourself non-binary.

What's more, the idea that only "whites" can be racist because of something that was done in their great-great-great grandparents time just doesn't fly. Racism comes in all colors. I've seen casual racism my entire life. I've also seen most people reach out for no other reason than someone else needed help.

Finally, judging people by label is a mistake. The label has no inherent vice or virtue. It's the individual who makes the label mean something through their words and actions, not the other way around. Power from victimhood depends on the pity of others and will make you less than you are.

---

Here are some of the demands for privilege I've seen during my life.

The idea that one skin color and one skin color alone can decide what is and is not racism. I still know people who try to convince me that a "black" minister saying "Hymietown" is not racist.

The idea that inner-city poverty is a more important than reservation poverty.

The idea that a person whose family came from Nigeria two generations ago has a claim on the success of a person whose family came from China five generations ago.

The idea that skin color should trump evidence in a crime.

And as long as we keep qualifying the legal definition of who is and is not allowed to marry, that problem will not go away. Previously I've pointed out in discussions on this site that somehow in the call for marriage equality poly marriage wasn't even a consideration. That selectivity is a consequence of defining rights by group instead of individual.

---

Pardon, but the bit about how some threw poly people under the bus should be stressed. Because the "struggle" wasn't about marriage in whatever form it could take between consenting adults, it was about "gay marriage."

It wasn't about rights. It was about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.

No, there wasn't a "polyamorous community" fighting to be recognized. I had some LGBT activists tell me emphatically that poly people didn't deserve marriage because they hadn't fought for it.

That is where my issue is. I'm perfectly willing to fight for equal rights. But I hear demands for "black" rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, and for all I know rights for people with ingrown toenails. Not to mention Christian rights, pagan rights, Muslim rights, atheist rights, and pastafarian rights. That doesn't even count the constant efforts of government to define government powers as rights (police rights, Congress has the right…). It seems that everyone wants to carve out their own piece but no one is willing to help carve out a piece for any group but theirs. Especially if they don't agree with other groups.

It's not about rights. It's about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.

Oh, and by the way, "white" cis males are guilty for all the troubles in the world. Especially when they don't abase themselves to the demands of self-identified victims-of-the-week. No matter what they personally have done or said, "white" cis males are undeniably and collectively guilty. Or so I am told. Again and again and again.

How that is not racist is beyond me.

Meanwhile "people of color" tell me that they are fighting for the rights of the victimized. And they are. But not if those victims live almost invisibly and don't advance certain causes. And definitely not if those victims have different politics. If there is an oil pipeline that gets TV coverage, the "champions" are all over it. But every day poverty on Amerindian reservations, well, that just isn't important enough.

So tell me, when is it reasonable when some victims are deliberately overlooked? Maybe it's not about rights. Maybe it's about privilege.

Human rights are the only ones worth fighting for. Maybe we should worry about the rights we share instead of a place in the pecking order. It's not a right unless the other has it too.

---

“I still wouldn't characterize them as privileges.”

I know. That's what's so frustrating. Human rights get moved to the back seat, then to the bicycle with a flat tire thirteen rows back.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ unjustified ∙ assumption ∙ climate crisis ∙ article of faith ∙ American ∙ Amerindians ∙ reservation ∙ Christian ∙ conservatives ∙ community ∙ racism ∙ privilege ∙ rights ∙ label ∙ marriage ∙ gay marriage ∙ polyamory ∙ people of color ∙ victims ∙ overlook ∙ human rights

❝❝Kudos for not mentioning the shooter's name.

The shooter had absolutely nothing to do with Heathenry or pagan beliefs. I don't understand why any group should change their language, practices, customs or actions when the shooter was not part of the group or the community.

Guns are not the problem. There are many more responsible gun owners than crazy people. The people who pay attention to gun laws are not the ones you should worry about. I say this as a reluctant gun advocate. I hate guns and I would ban them if I could eliminate every gun.

This tragedy does not reflect on Heathens. I understand that you have issues with how some Heathens speak and act. I respect that and I expect that you should speak your conscience. This terrible event should not justify wholesale changes in Heathenry just to satisfy your political desires.❞❞

— comments from Column: After Christchurch, Declarations or Deeds?

Tags: maxims ∙ cross posted ∙ damnatio memoriae ∙ Heathenry ∙ pagan ∙ language ∙ practices ∙ customs ∙ actions ∙ shooter ∙ community ∙ guns ∙ reluctant advocate ∙ conscience ∙ Christchurch ∙ New Zealand

❝❝Are you going to insist that Democrats are Democratic again?

---

Actually given the actions of the Democrat party leadership over the last century or so, Democratic is the last thing they should be called. It's always been about establishing an elite outside of the laws and rules that apply to everyone else. Often with veto power over the words and actions of others.

One recent example are the superdelegates. That is about as anti-democratic as you can get.

Just Newspeak in action. Again.

---

And you clearly didn't get my reference to Newspeak.

It's a brand name. It's no more democratic than Acme Company is "the best there is." Progressives and Democrats have a long undeniable history of coopting words into something that means the exact opposite. "Liberal" used to mean what we Americans call "libertarian" today.

---

And there we go. That's Democrat Tactic #45, Alinsky #13, and PeePeeTape #4.

Shift the focus away from the argument and towards the person who made the argument.

---

As I said, "with veto power over the words and actions of others."

Tell you what. I'll call them Brand D. That way you can ever so conveniently ignore the attempts to usurp language without being too obvious about it.

---

Do you really think you have the power to dictate my actions or words?

Do you really think that there is one person reading this site that will have any doubt whatsoever just which group I mean?

Brand D it is then.❞❞

Tags: Democrats ∙ democratic ∙ maxims ∙ elite ∙ laws and rules ∙ veto power ∙ words ∙ actions ∙ anti-democratic ∙ Newspeak ∙ brand name ∙ Brand D

❝❝As far as I am concerned, you have no business going after Republicans until you at least acknowledge that Democrats aren't perfect and are just as good at messing things up.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ Barack Obama ∙ White House ∙ Trump Tower ∙ mainstream media ∙ trust ∙ overlook ∙ maxims

“We all get into intense discussions with frustrating leftists, but despite all the reason and logic in the world, we rarely make progress. In this video, I explore some ways in which anyone might effectively red pill a liberal.”

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ MrReagan ∙ discuss ∙ red pill ∙ progressive ∙ leftist

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ John Stossel ∙ taxes ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ Phil Magness ∙ American Institute for Economic Research ∙ accountants ∙ tax lawyers ∙ Ronald Reagan

❝❝To me, the interesting thing is that most of the mainstream media is willing to ignore things like this so long as it's a Democrat doing it to a Republican.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: Obama Administration ∙ Trump Tower ∙ wiretap ∙ Barack Obama ∙ incompetent ∙ liar ∙ Donald Trump ∙ mainstream media ∙ ignore ∙ rule of law ∙ abuse of power ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ good ∙ evil ∙ greater harm ∙ maxims

❝❝Maybe the fault isn't in the "Right" or "Left," but in the idea that other people's behavior must be controlled For Their Own Good and For the Good of Society. Rather than teaching people that freedom comes with responsibility, we condition people to obey the duly delegated Proper Authority for the sake of perpetuating the institution.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Right ∙ Left ∙ behavior ∙ controlled ∙ For Their Own Good ∙ For the Good of Society ∙ freedom ∙ responsibility ∙ conditioned ∙ obey ∙ Proper Authority ∙ institutions

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ ReasonTV ∙ grievance studies ∙ hoax ∙ academic journals ∙ gender ∙ race ∙ political corruption ∙ sexuality

““I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition.””

— Thomas Jefferson

Tags: Thomas Jefferson ∙ states rights ∙ Constitution ∙ United States ∙ powers ∙ Congress

““Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.””

— Abraham Lincoln

Tags: Abraham Lincoln ∙ goverment ∙ people

““… I believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people … are the safeguard to the continuance of a free government … whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.””

— Robert E. Lee

Tags: Robert E. Lee ∙ states rights ∙ safeguard ∙ Republic

““Today neither of our two parties maintains a meaningful commitment to the principle of States' Rights. The 10th Amendment is not a 'general assumption' but a rule of law. States rights mean that states have a right to act or not to act, as they see fit, in areas reserved to them.””

— Barry Goldwater

Tags: Barry Goldwater ∙ states rights ∙ Tenth Amendment

““The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation.””

— Alexander Hamilton

Tags: Alexander Hamilton ∙ states rights ∙ state government ∙ National governent ∙ encroachments

““The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.””

— James Madison

Tags: James Madison ∙ states rights ∙ Constitution ∙ Federal government ∙ state government

Tags: guest content ∙ Timothy Daughtry ∙ control ∙ think ∙ opinion ∙ intimidation ∙ violence ∙ ideological ∙ bubble ∙ offended ∙ crisis ∙ rhetoric

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ ReasonTV ∙ sugar ∙ subsidies ∙ price controls ∙ Ross Marchand ∙ Taxpayers Protection Alliance ∙ goverment ∙ Vincent H. Smith ∙ Marco Rubio ∙ Ryan Weston ∙ Diana Thomas

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Project Veritas ∙ Facebook ∙ Deboosting ∙ Troll Report ∙ censorship ∙ social media

What we do know is that there are loud politicos who want to take freedom, power, and money from people "for the greater good."

Tags: climate change ∙ climate models ∙ predictions ∙ climate alarmist ∙ politicos ∙ celebrity ∙ global cooling ∙ global warming ∙ climate science ∙ Intervene ∙ natural process ∙ freedom ∙ power ∙ money

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: health care ∙ health insurance ∙ health care providers ∙ wage caps ∙ employers ∙ Obamacare ∙ prices ∙ availability ∙ government ∙ manages

❝❝I think that for the politicos it was never about saving humans or the planet, it was always the justification for shifting massive amounts of power and cash without accountability.

Ocasio-Cortez is an idiot and a very noisy distraction.

What is going to hit next is The Compromise®. There will be some very well respected and high profile Democrats who will publicly proclaim that of course the Green New Deal goes too far. But maybe we should consider some of the proposals. Carefully. After all, people are scared.

And if the "reasonable" Democrats don't get The Compromise®, they can always throw their weight behind Ocasio-Cortez.

I suspect that "no planes" means no air travel unless it's Absolutely Necessary. With the Democrats deciding what is and is not necessary. Look for that in all the new proposals. That will be part of The Compromise® and how it will be sold to the public.❞❞

Tags: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ green new deal ∙ environmental crusade ∙ Democrats ∙ The Compromise® ∙ it's Absolutely Necessary ∙ exceptions

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ homeless ∙ San Francisco ∙ slum

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: facts ∙ narrative ∙ Donald Trump ∙ sociaism ∙ hotels ∙ surveillance culture ∙ sex trafficking ∙ Federal government ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ health care ∙ insurance companies ∙ Medicare ∙ budget ∙ deficit ∙ debt ∙ politicos ∙ Mick Mulvaney ∙ Larry Summers

❝❝Consider this. Is it possible that the corruption and graft are a function of the system and not a defect?❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ system ∙ corruption ∙ graft ∙ function ∙ defect

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Women's March ∙ global warming ∙ life expectancy ∙ SOTUA ∙ Donald Trump ∙ deficit ∙ national debt ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ green new deal ∙ Bolivarian Revolution ∙ incompetence ∙ corruption ∙ irresponsibility ∙ truth ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ special counsel ∙ Justice Department ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ home security ∙ cameras ∙ data mining ∙ privacy ∙ Venezuela ∙ Cuba ∙ interventionism ∙ prostitution ∙ New Hampshire ∙ legalization ∙ prohibition ∙ Maggie McNeil ∙ fake news ∙ campaign ∙ lies ∙ political parties

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Owen Benjamin ∙ same goals ∙ America ∙ commonality ∙ PragerU ∙ conservatives ∙ liberals ∙ leftist

Donald Trump: ‘We’ve Got to Get Out of These Endless Wars’

The Winter is Wreaking Havoc on Electric Vehicle Batteries

Taxes Are Getting Weaponized for Partisan Purposes

The Real Problem: The Militarization of the NFL

San Francisco — where drug addicts outnumber high school students

Covington Student Nick Sandmann’s Lawyers Send Preservation Letters to Media, Celebrities

Major DNA Testing Company Sharing Genetic Data With the FBI

U.S. Coup Attempt In Venezuela Lacks International Support

The cheapest Chinese electric cars are coming to the US and Europe—for as little as $9,000

Trump Once Wanted to Negotiate With Russia Over Nukes. Then Mueller Happened.

The Democrats and the politics of division

When Feminists Abandon Girls

Why Does the Federal Government Fail So Miserably Most of the Time?

Tags: feminist ∙ girls ∙ DNC ∙ victimhood ∙ victim hierarchy ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Russia ∙ negotiate ∙ nuclear weapons ∙ Venezuela ∙ coup ∙ General Bullmoose ∙ FBI ∙ Covington Catholic School ∙ Nick Sandmann ∙ lawyers ∙ San Francisco ∙ drug addicts ∙ sudents ∙ winter ∙ electric vehicles ∙ taxes ∙ abuse of power ∙ NFL ∙ militarization ∙ warfare state

“The Nature of Sex”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ PragerU ∙ Richard Lindzen ∙ climate change alarmists

❝❝The classes teaching socialist and Marxist ideology aren't labeled as such. They are in fact part of the general education requirement. That wouldn't be so bad, except those classes are the only ones allowed. No one is allowed to dissent from the orthodoxy.

Once upon a time, university meant debating things that you disagreed with or that made you uncomfortable. You learned to think and defend your reasoning even if the words and thoughts you faced offended you.

Now, we have safe spaces to protect overgrown children from triggering because they shouldn't have to face something that actually makes them think and grow.

Education should not be pre-chewed. Education should be hard. Education should challenge you to be something more than you are right now. Education should be about understanding what you oppose. Education should be about finding what works.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from De-toxify America by pulling federal funds out of higher education

Tags: maxims ∙ education ∙ universities ∙ general education requirement ∙ Marxists ∙ socialist ∙ ideology ∙ dissent ∙ defend ∙ reasoning ∙ safe spaces ∙ triggering ∙ children ∙ challenge ∙ finding what works

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: lecturing ∙ climate change alarmists ∙ Sweden ∙ EU ∙ cryptocurrency ∙ Democrats ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Venezuela ∙ coup ∙ libertarian ∙ judge ∙ Clint Bolick ∙ Institute For Justice ∙ Facebook ∙ NFL ∙ lawsuit ∙ Super Bowl ∙ security ∙ Lancet Commission Report ∙ obesity ∙ malnutrition ∙ climate change ∙ Venezuela ∙ regime change ∙ net neutrality ∙ profit

Government has power only to protect the rights of individuals.

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Eric Boehm ∙ L.A. Rams ∙ stadium ∙ Stan Kroenke ∙ NFL

The Nature of Sex

““If this sounds like a massive overreach, consider the fact that the proposed Equality Act — with 201 co-sponsors in the last Congress — isn’t simply a ban on discriminating against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodations (an idea with a lot of support in the American public). It includes and rests upon a critical redefinition of what is known as “sex.” We usually think of this as simply male or female, on biological grounds (as opposed to a more cultural notion of gender). But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”””
     — Andrew Sullivan

Tags: guest content ∙ clipping ∙ Andrew Sullivan ∙ transgender ∙ Congress ∙ discrimination ∙ sex ∙ gender identity

GFC Lessons Not Learnt

Tags: rights ∙ goverment ∙ agency ∙ agents ∙ power ∙ power of the state

It’s Negative 24 Degrees and the Wind Isn’t Blowing. This is Why We Need Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power, Not Renewables

South Bend Mayor and Possible Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg Decries "Endless War"

Bill Nye’s Latest Climate Warning: The Us Will Have To Grow Its Food In Canada

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs executive order scrapping Common Core

The 16th Amendment: How the U.S. Federal Income Tax Became D.C.'s Favorite Political Weapon

Whatever Mueller Finds, Gag-Orders and No-Knock Raids Should Appall EVERYONE.

What the Press Missed About Vanguard Founder's Fortune

Venezuela Finds Out The Hard Way That Only Bitcoin Is Unconfiscatable

VA announces new rules giving veterans access to private providers

Primetime CNN, MSNBC Ignore Virginia Dems Supporting Late, Post-Term Abortions

PRESIDENT PELOSI? House Speaker holds public bill signings — to compete with Trump?

Noncitizens registered to vote in Pennsylvania and Texas show vote fraud is real

Dems Are Shocked, Shocked To Learn That 'Medicare For All' Outlaws Private Insurance

No-Knock Warrant for Deadly Drug Raid Describes Heroin and a Gun Cops Didn't Find

Yoho’s ‘Zero-for-Zero’ Sugar Plan To Curb Foreign Subsidies Returns

Water From the Air and Power From Trash

Politico: Liberals Developing New Phraseology to Hype 'Climate Change'

Europe 'coming apart before our eyes', say 30 top intellectuals

South Carolina Police Hauled in $17 Million Through Civil Asset Forfeiture Over Three Years

France’s Red Scarves: Ready-Made Counter-Protest and New Media Darlings

Howard Schultz Shoots Down Liz Warren Attack With Passionate Defense of the American Dream

An American Nightmare

Don't Expect The EU To Cave On May's Brexit Deal Until The Very Last Minute

Chaos has reportedly erupted inside Facebook as employees find themselves unable to open the company's apps on their iPhones

After 4 Cops Shot in Houston, Police Promise to Go After and ‘Track’ Those Who Criticize Police

‘I’m Not Going to Enforce That’: Sheriffs Disobey New Anti-Gun Laws—Refuse to Disarm Citizens

When 'Former' Spies Run Wild, Bad Things Happen

84% of 18-24 year olds don’t know how to change a light bulb… but they think they can run the economy?

Entrepreneurship Lifts Cambodia from the Clutches of Extreme Poverty in a Single Generation

NANCY? Pelosi botches words, suffers face spasms, confuses Dems, GOP while vowing no border wall funding

Roger Stone faces a gag order. He has a plan to resist it.

The Unseen Costs of Humanitarian Intervention

Rep. Ilhan Omar calls for sharp tax increases on the wealthy: 'We've had it as high as 90 percent'

Tags: humanitarian ∙ interventionism ∙ Cambodia ∙ entrepreneurship ∙ spies ∙ gun control ∙ Houston ∙ police ∙ Facebook ∙ iPhone ∙ Apple ∙ EU ∙ Brexit ∙ Theresa May ∙ FBI ∙ Roger Stone ∙ Howard Schultz ∙ Elizabeth Warren ∙ France ∙ red scarves ∙ theft ∙ South Carolina ∙ civil asset forfeiture ∙ Europe ∙ climate change ∙ water ∙ power ∙ trash ∙ sugar ∙ subsidies ∙ Ted Yoho ∙ Democrats ∙ Medicare ∙ vote fraud ∙ Pennsylvania ∙ Texas ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Virgina ∙ late term ∙ abortion ∙ VA ∙ private providers ∙ Venezuela ∙ bitcoin ∙ currency ∙ John Bogle ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ gag order ∙ no-knock raids ∙ 16th Amendment ∙ income tax ∙ Ron DeSantis ∙ Florida ∙ Common Core ∙ Pete Buttigieg ∙ South Bend ∙ endless war ∙ Bill Nye ∙ cIimate panic ∙ renewable ∙ fossil fuels ∙ nuclear power ∙ severe winter

GFC Lessons Not Learnt

““In reality, the real causes of the financial crisis lie deeper; to problems going back a century. In the early 20th century, the American government faced an alarming problem. The Russian Revolution of 1917 terrified government officials. They believed that to deter the rise of communism, more Americans needed to become invested in the system of private property: the best way to make the average American a good capitalist was to make him a homeowner.

The federal government thus began insuring bank mortgage lending, thereby expanding finance available for middle class consumers. But there was a catch: any new housing must be racially segregated to gain federal insurance. No insurance was to be extended to African-American purchasers or to white purchasers moving into African-American neighbourhoods. This practice, known as “redlining” of neighbourhoods, largely provided home ownership for whites while denying it for African-Americans.

Unable to own their own home and forced into poor quality neighbourhoods, African-Americans missed out on generations of wealth-building opportunities. As house prices rose over time, the gap between minority and white household wealth grew greater. So by the time President Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, he faced a familiar problem—too few low-income and minority Americans owned their home. Clinton was under enormous pressure from housing activists to radically expand homeownership. Activist groups were particularly critical of banks’ strict underwriting standards for home loans, such as requiring high credit scores and solid downpayments. They claimed these higher standards disproportionately hurt low-income earners and minorities. Their answer was to wield the power of the federal government to force the mortgage market to loosen its underwriting standards, so that more and more marginal borrowers could qualify for a home loan. Prominent community activist Gale Cincotta made this clear, testifying before Congress in 1991, that “lenders will respond to the most conservative standards unless [federal government agencies] are aggressive and convincing in their efforts to expand historically narrow underwriting”.””
     — Daniel Press

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Daniel Press ∙ American ∙ goverment ∙ 20th Century ∙ Russian revolution ∙ Communism ∙ capitalists ∙ financial mess ∙ African-Americans ∙ segregation

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ stadium scam ∙ taxpayer subsidies ∙ Super Bowl ∙ Atlanta Falcons

❝❝Bottom line: the politics of victimhood always depend on the guilt of others AND avoiding personal responsibility. And no matter what the "guilty" might "sacrifice," it's never enough. Equal rights and equal opportunity is one thing, special privilege because of "past wrongs" is just asking for trouble.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from The Assault Smirk and Scary Leftist illustrated edition

Tags: maxims ∙ victimhood ∙ personal responsiblity ∙ equal rights ∙ equal opportunity ∙ guilt ∙ sacrifice

❝❝It’s not about who is better, it’s about what we can do together.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ better ∙ together

“Covington Catholic and the MAGA hat kid may sue media figures for libel. The school closes down for safety concerns, and Trump tweets his support for the students...”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ Roaming Millennial ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Covington Catholic School ∙ Nathan Philips ∙ Nick Sandmann ∙ MAGA hats

“I normally avoid these sort of topics, but after seeing all this footage and all the people trying to destroy these kids lives, I felt like I had to do something.

We all need to do better, stop with this mob mentality over the first thing we see. Remember there's always two sides to a coin.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Nathan Philips ∙ Nick Sandmann ∙ Dinkleberry Crunch ∙ Covington Catholic School ∙ MAGA hats

Washington Forced Segregation on the Nation

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Richard Rothstein ∙ segregation ∙ 1940 ∙ Federal government ∙ African-Americans ∙ FHA ∙ civil rights

“A short film - Dedicated to all those who sacrifice everything to make the world safer and better for all of us.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Gillette ∙ Egard Watches ∙ man ∙ masculinity ∙ Longrider

Tags: Brexit ∙ Will Hurd ∙ private property ∙ Texas ∙ judge ∙ election ∙ Wisconsin ∙ lame duck ∙ special counsel ∙ Donald Trump ∙ lawyer ∙ Amazon ∙ Watergate ∙ government action ∙ masculinity ∙ boycott ∙ BDS ∙ Green Berets ∙ France ∙ yellow vest ∙ Emmanuel Macron ∙ class action lawsuit ∙ election tampering ∙ Navy ∙ USS Fitzgerald ∙ probe ∙ Real ID ∙ national security ∙ New York ∙ gun rights ∙ FISA ∙ DoJ ∙ Steele Dossier ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ privacy ∙ Tim Cook ∙ Apple ∙ FTC ∙ Facebook ∙ children ∙ California ∙ Third World ∙ credit card companies ∙ censorship ∙ Second Amendment

“A new Gillette commercial tackles toxic masculinity & metoo, but reactions say it's anti-male.”

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Roaming Millennial ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ Gillette ∙ toxic masculinity ∙ virtue signaling

Now, see, I was going to make nice here and just touch on the subject.

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ John Stossel ∙ government shutdown ∙ goverment ∙ goverment failure ∙ government accountability

Mark Penn: FBI Trump-Russia investigation shows deep state was worse than we thought

The Shutdown Is Providing Evidence Of Private Businesses Making Government Obsolete

The shutdown’s real lesson: Government has taken hostage too much of the economy

Political Nightmares Multiply for Europe Ahead of Davos

Feds Can't Force You To Unlock Your iPhone With Finger Or Face, Judge Rules

The Game of Pseudo-Authenticity

Supreme Court to Consider Whether Police Can Order Blood Draws from Unconscious Drivers

Public Disdain For Russia Probe Intensifies, Trump Approval Climbs — IBD/TIPP Poll

Trump's Terrible Record on Property Rights

California prohibits gender-based auto insurance: report

Democrats Failing to Control Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green Revolution

Second Thoughts On Pot

Dems fly to Puerto Rico on chartered jet, meet with lobbyists, see 'Hamilton' as shutdown drags on

US approved thousands of child bride requests

Oh My: Catholic Archdioceses Admit Wuerl Knew Of McCarrick Abuse Allegation In 2004

Philly residents defy the city’s controversial ‘soda tax’

Inside Facebook’s ‘cult-like’ workplace, where dissent is discouraged and employees pretend to be happy all the time

5 Things To Do About Our Culture’s Antagonism Against Men

Gab Promotes Bitcoin as 'Free Speech Money' to Over 850,000 Users

The Recession Will Be Unevenly Distributed

How Facebook Borrows From the NSA Playbook

5 reasons why there’s still no end to the shutdown

The only acceptable answer: “None of your f(ornicating) business!”

Who gave National Review the power to excommunicate?

Employee at Ford Office Fired After Disagreeing With Transgender Post

Majority Preservation Act

Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize

This Reporter Took a Deep Look Into the Science of Smoking Pot. What He Found Is Scary.

Carriers Swore They'd Stop Selling Location Data. Will They Ever?

Cory Doctorow: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

Tags: mobile carriers ∙ Nobel Prize ∙ Barack Obama ∙ gun control ∙ NSA ∙ recession ∙ Gab ∙ bitcoin ∙ Facebook ∙ war against men ∙ Catholic Church ∙ Philadelphia ∙ soda tax ∙ Hispanic Caucus ∙ Puerto Rico ∙ Democrats ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ cannabis ∙ Donald Trump ∙ victimhood ∙ privacy ∙ Fourth Amendment ∙ deep state ∙ RussiaGate ∙ FBI ∙ government shutdown ∙ Europe ∙ Davos

❝❝Unscientific test.

Two video monitors of equal size. A dozen people, some of who were Democrats. Both videos played side by side with the volume turned down. All but one person thought that Trump came across stronger, more confident, better body language, and more convincingly. One guy said that Pelosi and Schumer looked like high school student council candidates.

Again, I don't like Trump and I don't trust Trump. But compared to the Democrat leadership, well, there's no comparison.

Is anyone else reminded of the Kennedy-Nixon debate?❞❞

❝❝Kennedy vs. Nixon.

Regardless of what was said, visually Trump came across looking very well. Pelosi and Schumer came across looking like two high schoolers running for student council. That observation isn't mine, but I am caging it anyway. Why in the World were they sharing a lectern?

Trump came across as an executive with pictures of his loved ones in the background. And with only one American flag. Pelosi and Schumer looked like they got kicked out of the cafeteria and they dragged in flags to make the walls look good.

As an aside, the trend of using multiple flags behind you to show your patriotism is stupid.

Kennedy vs. Nixon.

---

If you'll remember, I told you before you need to focus on the things that Trump does that are actually wrong. I specifically mentioned his misuse of eminent domain in the past. Lo and behold, the key part of his emergency plan is eminent domain.

Peepers, you focus on the wrong things when you attack Trump. You have from the very first. And you continually mistake my not agreeing with you as support of Trump.

Trump has been making Democrats look bad since he announced. It doesn't help when Democrats continually underestimate him. Even if they ignore everything that Trump did before, there's not a one of the Democrat Congressional leadership who has ever negotiated anything outside government. Trump is playing this exactly right and the optics reflect that.

You want to take Trump down? I'll tell you what to focus on. Eminent domain. The volatility of the stock market. Not the direction, but how fast and how far it changes direction. There's some major instability there. His treatment of the EU, particularly downgrading the ambassador. National security, particularly spying on Americans. Healthcare. War on drugs. Prescription drugs and self medication. The Second Amendment. Social Security and pensions. The national debt. Military spending and accountability. Free speech. Protectionism. Start with those.

You can't treat him as a Republican politico because he isn't one. And don't forget that this man has been dragging his fights and negotiations through the press for forty years. Remember that exchange from the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie about the worst pirate. Trump doesn't care if the press is good or bad, he just wants the press.

---

This came from an unscientific experiment that some friends and I did. And yes, some of them were Democrats. We ran the videos side by side on two monitors with the sound turned off.

Trump looked like he belonged. Pelosi and Schumer didn't. Their body language showed that they were unhappy, probably because they were sharing a lectern and neither wanted to share the spotlight. Pay attention to their hands specifically. Trump looked friendly, Pelosi and Schumer looked like they wanted to strangle someone.

I never have liked the multiple American flag thing, not even when it started with Bush League. I think it was him, he was the one I noticed using it first. Certainly the Democrats of that time were doing it. I think it is purposely distracting. Come to think of it, that's when I remember multiple Democrats sharing a lectern. Or at least all standing behind one person at the lectern.

As for the Z group, I adjusted my tactics accordingly. They wanted to ignore the political implications when those same implications were central to the argument, whether they wished to acknowledge that or not.

You on the other hand don't like to deal when facts or actions don't fit your script. You think that opposing someone means throwing every insult and accusation possible at them in the hope that something sticks. You're not willing to look the person's history and adjust accordingly. You let the labels control your expectations and then get frustrated when things don't turn out the way you want.

I was never against criticizing Trump. I was against criticizing Trump stupidly foolishly in ways that would make him look stronger and better. Throwing insults at him doesn't work, he just pushes back. Treating him as the typical Republican politico who will back down out of civility or for the greater good doesn't work because that is not what he does.

It's not that I support Trump. I just think you are attacking him in very stupid and amazingly ineffective ways.❞❞

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Democrats ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ Chuck Schumer ∙ Kennedy-Nixion debate ∙ multiple flags ∙ eminent domain ∙ underestimating ∙ negptiate ∙ stock market ∙ volatility ∙ EU ∙ ambassador ∙ national security ∙ spying on Americans ∙ health care ∙ War on Drugs ∙ prescription drugs ∙ self medication ∙ Second Amendment ∙ Social Security ∙ pensions ∙ national debt ∙ military spending ∙ accountability ∙ protectionism ∙ Republican ∙ politicos ∙ press ∙ political opinions ∙ insult ∙ label

Now, see, I was going to make nice here and just touch on the subject.

Tags: sex ∙ lesbian ∙ not all ∙ Christian ∙ Christians ∙ Chrstianity ∙ men ∙ women

““Stop insulting Americans just because they vote for someone you don’t like.””

— Dan Crenshaw

Tags: Dan Crenshaw ∙ Americans ∙ insult ∙ vote

Union Scum: Seasonal UPS Workers Had Paychecks Taken By Local Teamsters Chapter In Boston

Firm Who Warned America of ‘Russian Meddling’ Caught Running Fake Russia Bot Campaign

Liberal Donor Apologizes For Funding Group That Falsely Claimed Russians Supported Roy Moore In Alabama Senate Race

New Studies Show Pundits Are Wrong About Russian Social-Media Involvement in US Politics

Imagine if We Paid for Food like We Do Healthcare

How Should Facebook (and Twitter, and YouTube, and...) Decide What Speech To Allow?

The angry lawyer who went on a racist rant that went viral got kicked out of his office space — and his week is only getting worse

Angela Merkel: Nation States Must "Give Up Sovereignty" To New World Order

A year after net-neutrality’s repeal, the Internet is alive and well — and faster than ever

A Holiday Mystery: Why Did John Roberts Intervene in the Mueller Probe?

NY police say 'Muslim Community Patrol' car not sanctioned by them

New Documents Suggest The Steele Dossier Was A Deliberate Setup For Trump

Yellow Vests Becoming World Wide Movement

France: Year's 1st yellow vest event brings tear gas, fires

Eminent Domain: The Wall’s Other Problem

Must Writers Be Moral? Their Contracts May Require It

The New Congress and the Rolling Catastrophe of the US Body Politic

Fact check: What's a 'national emergency,' and can Trump declare one to get his wall?

Movies for Libertarians: Little Pink House

House Lawmakers Prepare Rollout Of Gun Control Proposal

Man Sells Junk Guns To Buy-Back Program, Buys New Gun With Cash

The Vaccination Debate

How Medicare For All Could Become the Leading Cause of Death In America

Ginsburg missing Supreme Court arguments for 1st time

Airport Security Lines Grow Across The Nation As TSA Sickout Continues

Tags: TSA ∙ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ∙ Supreme Court ∙ Medicare ∙ vaccination ∙ autism ∙ gun control ∙ national emergency ∙ morality police ∙ yellow vest ∙ eminent domain ∙ Steele Dossier ∙ Muslim Community Patrol ∙ NYPD ∙ John Roberts ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ probe\ ∙ net neutrality ∙ internet ∙ Angela Merkel ∙ sovereignty ∙ New World Order ∙ union ∙ UPS ∙ Teamsters ∙ RussiaGate ∙ Roy Moore ∙ lawyers ∙ racist

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ tech companies ∙ Google ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ algorithm ∙ John Stossel ∙ The Creepy Line ∙ Jordan Peterson ∙ Robert Epstein

As long as you buy into the idea that one side is marginally better, the circus continues and you are cut out of the decisions.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Democrats ∙ false choice ∙ rigged ∙ distraction

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: trade ∙ Andrew Cuomo ∙ cannabis ∙ nun ∙ mistletoe ∙ James Comey ∙ transparancy ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ gun control ∙ gene editing ∙ Cuba ∙ Venezuela ∙ yellow vest ∙ middle class ∙ Donald Trump ∙ GOP ∙ government shutdown ∙ China ∙ Russia ∙ DNC ∙ Tom Perez ∙ voter data ∙ stadium scam ∙ Phoenix Suns

Federal judge in Texas rules Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional

VA Whistleblower Visited By FBI, Sent To Psych Ward, Set To Be Terminated From Job

FBI misses deadline to provide docs to Judiciary Committee probing whistleblower raid

Bare-Breasted 'Mariannes' Face Off With French Police; Tear Gas, Pepper Spray Used On Protesting Yellow Vests

Moscow To Set Up Military Base In Caribbean

The Green New Deal: eco pastiche

Personal Bank Accounts in Venezuela Frozen to “Fight Terrorism”

Every Bubble Is In Search Of A Pin

Will Half Of All Colleges Really Close In The Next Decade?

Mueller Destroyed Messages From Peter Strzok's iPhone; OIG Recovers 19,000 New "FBI Lovebird" Texts

Venezuela Joins the Social Credit Club

Million Plus NJ Gun Owners Defy State Law, Refuse to Turn Over Banned Gun Mags

New Jersey Magazine Capacity Restriction: Now What?

New Bill Prohibiting 3D Printed Firearms Introduced to Congress

One Year Ago Today, the FCC Killed the Internet

Tags: FCC ∙ internet ∙ net neutrality ∙ Congress ∙ New Jersey ∙ gun control ∙ defy ∙ social credit ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Peter Strzok ∙ bubble ∙ Venezuela ∙ bank ∙ Green New Deal ∙ Russia ∙ Caribbean ∙ military ∙ yellow vest ∙ France ∙ protesters ∙ Mariannes ∙ tear gas ∙ Judiciary Committee ∙ Obamacare ∙ Affordable Care Act ∙ VA ∙ whistleblower ∙ FBI ∙ psych ward ∙ fired

The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

I can't stress how important this is.

Trump has been accused, but Hillary Clinton did it.

Why was the special prosecutor authorization focused solely on the Trump campaign?

Tags: Hillary Clinton ∙ Clinton Foundation ∙ money laundering ∙ Donald Trump ∙ special prosecutor ∙ Trump campaign

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: New York ∙ police misconduct ∙ inauguration ∙ radical ∙ CBS ∙ #MeToo ∙ Eliza Dushku ∙ sexual conduct ∙ campus ∙ reason ∙ religion ∙ deep ecology ∙ doctrine ∙ Instagram ∙ social media ∙ Democrats ∙ pork barrel ∙ earmarks ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Middle East ∙ Russia ∙ DoJ ∙ Peter Strzok ∙ Lisa Page ∙ San Francisco ∙ expensive ∙ restaurant ∙ Congress ∙ sexual harassment ∙ organic farming ∙ climate

❝❝I'm telling you to stop expecting the law to save you. And I'm telling you that law should be a last resort.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ save you ∙ last resort

❝❝Critics have also noted that much of the science doesn't hold up and that the ten year deadlines keep getting moved.

---

Pardon, but that is not true. It's a very small minority of critics have publicly claimed the science doesn't hold up. As for the "vast majority of the world's scientists," that's not true either.

This is one area where what little science there is has been buried under layers and layers of politics. It has become heresy to criticize the "conclusions." And the reactions to those who do ask questions are exactly like those historical reactions to those who questioned Islam or Christianity in a less enlightened age. We should be asking why it is necessary to crush dissent. We should also be asking if (notoriously unreliable) politicos are really on the side of Earth and Nature, or if they have their own agenda.

Then we get to the science which really isn't science. It's computer models built on a unproven assumptions, including a carbon dioxide cascade effect that has never been observed either in the laboratory or in the field. The models also minimize other known strong climate influences such as solar variations and atmospheric water, probably because those can't be blamed on human activity. But no, the science is settled and Must Not Be Questioned.

Those of us who follow Earth-centered paths want to believe that we are uniquely qualified to help. Part and parcel of that is the belief that we are uniquely qualified to hurt as well. While there are ecological problems that are human caused like pollution and water table damage and overharvesting the seas and rainforests, Nature adapts. If all humans disappeared tomorrow morning at 7:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, life would go on.

We need to find actual changes that make the World a little better. That doesn't include handing over massive funding and political power to politicos and technocrats who have no understanding of Nature and haven't the slightest idea how to solve the "problem."

---

As a rule, I don't think either/or solutions apply. It's not save the planet OR consume everything.

Are there solutions? Yes, and a lot of them are beyond our reach for now. When we get nanotech going (and we will), I expect one of the first large scale applications will be vat-grown exotic hardwoods that are virtually indistinguishable from the "real thing" other than cost and availability. Vat-grown stone will follow. Already vat-grown meat shows promise.
And that is just short to medium term.

We can make it better without the need for noble sacrifice.

We also need to address capitalistic solutions that may work. The American bison population is growing because some herds are privately owned and managed. There's evidence that works with African elephants as well. People take care of what they own.

---

"Eppur si muove."

This is public science we are talking about. Public science means telling the politicos what they want to hear. In living memory, public science has flip flopped on things like forest management, eugenics, recommended diet, humans have only five senses, and the role of sodium in human biology. When discussing public science, we should always ask "who profits?"

I focus on the political of climate science because unlike almost any other field of science, dissent is not allowed. It's not merely a matter of dismissing results, it's discrediting the researchers who don't toe the line.

For most of the 20th Century, we humans have treated Science as the new god. We forget we know much less than we think we know. We forget that science is a process and not an absolute. I just keep remembering a commercial I heard on an old-time radio recording. "Eight out of ten doctors recommend Lucky Strikes for their patients who smoke."

I'd probably ignore the whole mess except governments are demanding tremendous power to Act Now despite having no real solutions. And of course, it's too urgent for debate or to submit to public vote.

---

I am not anti-science.

I really don't want to turn this into a long debate on climate science or government power.

What I'd like is for people to ask more questions. Why the goalposts for action keep moving. Just what is supposed to be done and how much of an effect it should have. What will be done if the predictions fail to predict.

While Why neopagans of all people are treating this as an Absolute Revelation when we know that the World does things we don't expect.

Why we can't start with simple things like planting more trees.

I think asking these questions is important.

---

It's the political aspect that worries me. I won't kid you, the extreme climate change crowd are a major inspiration for what I call the True Believer™.

I think the science could work itself out, but partial conclusions and unproven techniques have been placed front and center of an agenda that has very little to do with saving the planet.

---

““The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.””

— H. L. Mencken

---

*shrugs*

Like I said, if it wasn't for the politician's rush to do something now, and incidentally completely remake every social structure and institution, I'd be content to sit this one out.

I've done more than a little research on this subject over the years. I've written about it quite a bit. I'm notorious in some circles for being the pagan that doesn't embrace the climate change panic.

But more and more I see this as political. It's not the scientists who are making the noise. It's not the scientists who are calling for massive financial and social changes. And it's not the scientists who want to punish "climate deniers."

---

I've no problem with bottom up changes providing better alternatives.

I've every problem with unquestioned top down solutions imposed by force.

I firmly believe that there are two phrases which have done more to shape humanity and human history than anything else.

The first is Let me help.

The second is I can do better than that!

---

Can you name another topic where "science" is defined by consensus rather than it's ability to predict?

---

Science isn't neutral. Science is a process. As a process, it shouldn't be treated as a conclusion.

The Brontosaurus was, wasn't, and then was again. Our perspective changed, our acceptance changed, but those old bones didn't.

No one is measuring the value of plate tectonics by how many people agree with it. Validity is measured by how well the theory explains observed phenomena and predicts what will happen.

Yet when it comes to climate change, there is always an overwhelming percentage of consent consensus cited, as if this measures validity.❞❞

Tags: climate change ∙ critics ∙ science ∙ islam ∙ Christianity ∙ heresy ∙ dissent ∙ politicos ∙ Earth ∙ Nature ∙ agenda ∙ computer models ∙ cascade effect ∙ science is settled ∙ Earth-centered religion ∙ adaptation ∙ either/or ∙ nanotech ∙ noble sacrifice ∙ capitalism ∙ government power ∙ true believers ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ consensus ∙ process ∙ Brontosaurus

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Boy Scouts ∙ Uber ∙ Ivy League ∙ liberals ∙ conservatives ∙ patronize ∙ minorities ∙ text messages ∙ tax ∙ California ∙ yellow vest ∙ corruption ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ Chuck Schumer ∙ Oval Office ∙ green new deal ∙ Capital Hill ∙ IPCC ∙ Poland ∙ climate change alarmists ∙ Jamieson Webster ∙ anxieties ∙ religion ∙ record public officials ∙ media ∙ military spending ∙ Project Veritas ∙ EPA ∙ environment ∙ activists ∙ Ted Lieu ∙ First Amendment ∙ Venezuela ∙ Citgo

Australian government passes controversial world-first anti-encryption law amid broad criticism

Tags: H.L. Mencken ∙ populace ∙ alarm ∙ safety ∙ hobgoblins ∙ Imaginary

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: RussiaGate ∙ criminalizing ∙ Belgium ∙ Netherlands ∙ Paris ∙ riots ∙ William Barr ∙ separation of church & state ∙ Antifa ∙ violence ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Portland ∙ Tumblr ∙ NSFW ∙ Silicon Valley ∙ morality police ∙ police misconduct ∙ Georgia ∙ arrested ∙ Florida

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: textual differences ∙ new covenan ∙ Judaism ∙ Hawaiian culture and language ∙ Rome ∙ label ∙ deeds ∙ Decalogue ∙ New Testament ∙ tolerance ∙ extreme ∙ Hong Kong ∙ E pluribus unum ∙ Greece ∙ measure a man ∙ faith ∙ government ∙ Amerindians ∙ Jews ∙ Bible ∙ slavery ∙ trade ∙ religious freedom ∙ pluralism ∙ American ∙ religious virtue ∙ Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ Orthodox Jews ∙ Mormons ∙ Christian Scientists

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: China ∙ business ∙ excecutive ∙ gas taxes ∙ poor people ∙ France ∙ climate change alarmists ∙ nonviolence ∙ Clinton Foundation ∙ whistleblower ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ campaign contributions

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: California ∙ housing market ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Rod Rosenstein ∙ FBI ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ James Comey ∙ Human Rights Commission ∙ Christmas ∙ Presidency ∙ academic mobbing ∙ Marriott ∙ outrage ∙ commerce ∙ consensus ∙ United Nations ∙ Communism ∙ cool kids ∙ Facebook ∙ climate change alarmists ∙ Austrailia ∙ data ∙ privacy ∙ government power ∙ Michigan ∙ Republicans ∙ Wisconsin ∙ regulation ∙ crony capitalism ∙ tech companies ∙ media ∙ polls ∙ Democrats ∙ House of Representatives ∙ health care ∙ immigration ∙ jobs

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Intelligo ∙ privacy ∙ trusted ∙ employees ∙ background checks ∙ Jews ∙ tech companies ∙ EU ∙ copyright ∙ World Wide Web ∙ Emmanuel Macron ∙ France ∙ prohibition ∙ alcohol ∙ climate ∙ Intervene ∙ taxes ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Les Gilets Jaunes ∙ deep state ∙ secrets ∙ United Nations ∙ climate summit ∙ DJIA ∙ stock market ∙ women ∙ workplace ∙ taxpayers ∙ stadium scam ∙ Camden ∙ New Jersey ∙ insect ∙ disease ∙ DDT ∙ global warming ∙ Donald Trump ∙ G20 ∙ poker ∙ pop culture ∙ conservatives

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Illinois ∙ high school ∙ newspapers ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Supreme Court ∙ Utah ∙ public lands ∙ election ∙ trans activists ∙ women ∙ children ∙ funeral ∙ displayed in state ∙ national day of mourning ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Michael Flynn ∙ economic collapse ∙ 2008 ∙ Havana ∙ tuna ∙ can opener ∙ Millennial ∙ sex workers ∙ census ∙ non-citizens ∙ welfare ∙ resources ∙ abundance

The Amazon Deal Shows Why We Must End Corporate Welfare

Top Ecuadorian Diplomat Destroys Guardian's Claim That Manafort Visited Assange

Migrant caravan hits tourism

Will Dems Protest Clintons, Too?

Macron Looks to Tax Measures to Curb

Truth Is What We Hide, Self-Serving Cover Stories Are What We Sell

Will Paris Riots Scuttle Climate Accord?

Revealed: Marriott's 500 Million Hack Came After A String Of Security Breaches

Paris protests reveal fracture between France’s haves and have-nots

Miseducated or Stupid?

I quit Instagram and Facebook and it made me a lot happier — and that's a big problem for social media companies

Is the FBI Raiding Whistleblowers' Homes to Protect Robert Mueller?

I deleted my Twitter account. It's a breeding ground for thoughtlessness and contempt.

Tags: Twitter ∙ FBI ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Facebook ∙ Instagram ∙ social media ∙ Marriott ∙ data breech ∙ taxes ∙ Paris ∙ riots ∙ Paris Climate Agreement ∙ Democrats ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ migrants ∙ caravan ∙ tourism ∙ Amazon ∙ corporatism ∙ Ecuador ∙ Guardian ∙ Julian Assange ∙ Paul Manafort

Youngest kids in class may be over-diagnosed with ADHD

Destroyed for Nothing

Exclusive: Google Employees Debated Burying Conservative Media In Search

Obama Tells Wall Street to Thank him for Making Them so Much Money

The work-from-home doctor will see you now

The Ignored Legacy of George H.W. Bush: War Crimes, Racism, and Obstruction of Justice

The Forgotten Legacy of George H.W. Bush That the Media Won’t Tell You About

Post Office Has Boom Year: Loses More Money Than Ever

San Francisco's Wealthy Leftists Are Making Homelessness Worse

G20 Summit, Top Agenda Item: Bye-Bye American Empire

Texas Bill Would Set Foundation for a “Gun Rights Sanctuary State”

Landlord Tells Harvard Student to Move Out Over Legally Owned Guns

Supreme Court Deals Unanimous, Welcome Blow to Administrative State in Frog Case

Curtains for the Clintons

The Cities That Amazon HQ2 Left Behind

Tags: Bill Clinton ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Supreme Court ∙ administrative state ∙ landlords ∙ Texas ∙ gun rights ∙ G20 ∙ San Francisco ∙ homeless ∙ U.S. Post Office ∙ George H. W. Bush ∙ war crimes ∙ racism ∙ obstruction of justice ∙ Barack Obama ∙ telemedicine ∙ Wall Street ∙ Google ∙ conservative ∙ media bias ∙ ADHD ∙ public schools ∙ kids ∙ General Motors ∙ Detroit ∙ Poletown Taking

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: vaccine ∙ Federal government ∙ auto bailouts ∙ General Motors ∙ Maine ∙ food sovereignty ∙ Jerome Corsi ∙ Joshua Browde ∙ robot lawyer ∙ opioid crisis ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ home sales ∙ economy ∙ solar activity ∙ global cooling ∙ Veteran Affairs Department ∙ GI Bill benefits ∙ fuel tax ∙ Paris ∙ riots ∙ archive ∙ Wayback Machine ∙ Oregon ∙ solar equipment ∙ corporatism

❝❝Progressive politics revolves around choosing the most oppressed so that everyone else can be shamed into granting extra privileges to the designated victims.❞❞

— from the private journal of NeoWayland

Tags: progressive ∙ oppressed ∙ shamed ∙ privilege ∙ designated ∙ victims

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: George Soros ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ super villian ∙ right wingers ∙ left wingers ∙ labels

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: check your privilege ∙ discourse ∙ CNN ∙ fake news ∙ border ∙ debt ∙ serfs ∙ tax donkeys ∙ least bad ∙ Brexit ∙ politcal theatre ∙ Facebook ∙ big tech ∙ General Motors ∙ tariffs ∙ lay offs ∙ climate alarmist ∙ Obama Administration ∙ pepper spray ∙ Border Patrol ∙ migrants

Minneapolis' Healthy Foods Mandate Screws Over Ethnic Grocers

Buried? Feds to release major climate report day after Thanksgiving

Mises Predicted the "Red Meat Tax"

Why A Revote Is Necessary After Brenda Snipes Resigns Amid Florida’s Midterm Insanity

Even California Cannot Defy Nature Forever

QE Created Dangerous Financial Dependence, Italy Hooked, Withdrawal Next, ECB Warns

Information Attacks against Democracies

Roberts, Trump spar in extraordinary scrap over judges

Tags: John Roberts ∙ Donald Trump ∙ judges ∙ disinformation ∙ Italy ∙ quanitative easing ∙ California ∙ wildfires ∙ climate alarmist ∙ forest management ∙ Brenda Snipes ∙ Broward County ∙ Florida ∙ election ∙ FedGovs ∙ red meat ∙ Ludwig von Mises ∙ tax ∙ climate report ∙ Minneapolis ∙ healthy food ∙ grocers

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: subpoenas ∙ James Comey ∙ Loretta Lynch ∙ NASA ∙ SpaceX ∙ Elon Musk ∙ cannabis ∙ Thanksgiving dinner ∙ doctor ∙ heart patients ∙ Cuba ∙ Brazil ∙ exploit ∙ sociaism ∙ White House ∙ lethal force ∙ border ∙ wildfires ∙ global warming ∙ gun-free zones ∙ mass shootings ∙ medical devices ∙ data ∙ Clinton Foundation ∙ House of Representatives ∙ probe ∙ Julian Assange ∙ police ∙ union ∙ Orange County ∙ California ∙ election ∙ caravan ∙ Mexico ∙ Democrats ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ climate change ∙ economy ∙ real estate ∙ Austrailia ∙ Muslim groups ∙ Philadelphia ∙ Amazon ∙ New York ∙ Scott Morrison

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: FBI ∙ Southern Poverty Law Center ∙ Antifa ∙ Proud Boys ∙ ACLU ∙ female genital mutilation ∙ Benson AZ ∙ San Pedro river ∙ election ∙ Mia Love ∙ Ben McAdams ∙ George Soros ∙ caravan ∙ Barack Obama ∙ lecturers ∙ students ∙ DJIA ∙ tech stocks ∙ public sector ∙ unions ∙ Donald Trump ∙ forest management ∙ logging rules ∙ Jerry Brown ∙ asylum ∙ border

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: caravan ∙ crimminals ∙ ritualized apologies ∙ Obamas ∙ sex offenders ∙ rights ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ mall retailers ∙ email probe ∙ title ∙ sexual assault ∙ investigate ∙ Eastern Michigan University ∙ transgender ∙ The Vagina Monologues ∙ healthcare ∙ economy ∙ Donald Trump ∙ bigotry ∙ Facebook ∙ Pentagon ∙ audit ∙ Toronto ∙ gold standard ∙ Chinese ∙ Romans ∙ Persians ∙ Aztecs ∙ Google ∙ surveillance ∙ smart city

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ Remy ∙ Stan Lee ∙ comic books ∙ censorship ∙ Senate

❝❝Christianity, the Nation of Islam, atheism, Paganism, these are labels. Now people may use those labels as justifications for their actions, but it is not the label that is responsible. As a Pagan I'm not responsible for the actions of every Pagan out there. I'm responsible for my actions. Since I believe strongly that the measure of a man is in the lives he touches, I'll even accept some of the responsibility for the actions of the people I know and love. But someone I've never met? I can't be responsible for them, no matter what the label they choose. The label isn't responsible, the individuals are.❞❞

— NeoWayland, Redux: Christians & Pagan Tolerance

Tags: maxims ∙ Christianity ∙ Nation of Islam ∙ atheism ∙ paganism ∙ labels ∙ justification ∙ responsibility ∙ measure a man ∙ lives they touch ∙ know and love ∙ individual

In Democratic circles, anti-Semitism is becoming normal

The ACLU Condemns DeVos's Title IX Reforms, Says These Due Process Safeguards 'Inappropriately Favor the Accused'

Household debt hit a record high of $13.5 trillion last quarter

A Warm-Up For 2020: Arizona’s Maricopa County Just Stole The Senate Election

GOP Audits Elections Office In County That Swung To Democrats

Hanging On: Republican Congresswoman Mia Love Is Now Favored To Prevail In Tight Re-Election Bid

Stacey Abrams Acknowledges Loss In Georgia Governor's Race

Is an ‘Internet of Ears’ the next big thing for smart homes?

SAF, NRA File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Initiative 1639

Kansas City Health Department pours bleach on food meant for homeless people

Debra Messing Joins Alyssa Milano, Condemns Anti-Semitic Women's March Leaders

Gridlocked, in Fair Weather and Foul

Bubble Trouble: Seattle-Bellevue Metro Housing Market Goes South

Democrats’ Way Back: Is the Resistance rooted in reality?

Identity Politics and American anti-Semitism

Brenda Snipes submits resignation as Broward elections supervisor

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Liberal Scorned: The Media Turns on Facebook and Google

Trump backs sentencing reform bill he says will give ex-inmates 'a second chance at life'

The Institutionalization of Social Justice

There's a Good Reason Many Women Make Less Than Men

Loggers support Trump's claim that wildfires caused by 'poor forest management'

Global warming alarmists pissed off by Canadian gov’t report that nukes their narrative about polar bears

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ women ∙ Rick Scott ∙ Florida ∙ Senate ∙ global warming ∙ polar bears ∙ climate change alarmists ∙ loggers ∙ wildfires ∙ forest management ∙ wages ∙ social justice ∙ sentencing reform ∙ Democrats ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ Broward County ∙ media ∙ Facebook ∙ Google ∙ Brenda Snipes ∙ Betsy DeVos ∙ Title IX ∙ ACLU ∙ debt ∙ Arizona ∙ election ∙ Maricopa County ∙ Utah ∙ Mia Love ∙ Stacey Abrams ∙ Georgia ∙ internet of ears ∙ smart house ∙ Second Amendment Foundation ∙ SAF ∙ NRA ∙ National Rifle Association ∙ lawsuit ∙ Washington state ∙ Debra Messing ∙ New York ∙ snow ∙ housing market ∙ bubble ∙ Seattle ∙ identity politics

When they have eliminated superdelegates, they will have earned the designation.

Tags: Democrats ∙ democratic ∙ superdelegates ∙ Republican ∙ Hubert Humphrey ∙ Robert Kennedy ∙ nomination ∙ 1968 ∙ Cyrano de Bergerac ∙ language ∙ qualifiers ∙ restricting ∙ open primaries ∙ decisions ∙ judicial intervention ∙ ballot initiatives

““The Merriam=Webster Online dictionary defines Libertarian as: “a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.”  I agree with that definition.  The same dictionary defines liberty as:” the power to do as one pleases.”  This definition I do not agree with because it is incomplete.  It differs from the definition that was universally accepted by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  They believed that liberty is the freedom to do as you please, as long as you do not hurt others, or interfere with the rights of others.  It is freedom with the responsibility to not hurt others or prevent them from exercising their rights.

A Libertarian believes that preventing individuals from harming others, or interfering with the rights of others, are the only legitimate functions of government.  They believe that individuals should be free to live their lives as they choose, free from any government interference, as long as they treat others properly.  They believe that government assistance, of any kind, is unacceptable, unneeded, and harmful.””

— Jon Fournier, Why do Conservatives and Libertarians squabble so much?

Tags: Jon Fournier ∙ libertarian ∙ individual ∙ liberty ∙ thought ∙ action ∙ hurt ∙ rights ∙ goverment

That's the only thing we can really measure about each other.

Tags: monotheism ∙ sin ∙ Divine ∙ Jesus ∙ Christianity ∙ Christian ∙ afterlife ∙ secret of life

LGBT Splinter Group From Migrant Caravan Is The 1st To Arrive In Tijuana

Tags: George Orwell ∙ caravan ∙ LGBT ∙ splinter group ∙ Tijuana ∙ victimhood ∙ victim hierarchy ∙ benefits ∙ special consideration ∙ privilege ∙ inevitable progression

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: caravan ∙ Gallup ∙ Central America ∙ U.S. ∙ Republicans ∙ ballot box ∙ House of Representatives ∙ Gab ∙ Pennsylvania ∙ subpoena ∙ DNS provider ∙ Women's March ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ DNC ∙ Democrats ∙ health care ∙ Barack Obama ∙ energy independence ∙ Facebook ∙ George Soros ∙ Donald Trump ∙ inmate ∙ justice reform ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ Speaker of the House ∙ Federal Reserve ∙ Jerome Powell ∙ Amazon ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ conservatives ∙ universities ∙ climate alarmist

Maryland files federal court challenge asking judge to block Whitaker, install Rosenstein