Monday, October 19, 2020

Thank you for the 3 million hitcounter views today

I wish I had more subscribers to blogspot or Wordpress


Conservatism Now Means Defeating the Establishment

 Look around you at the smoldering ruins of American society, and it’s clear that you owe our garbage Establishment nothing.

Not loyalty.

Not respect.

Not obedience.


It has failed you. And now it is dead to you.

Tear it all down.

Rip out its rotten foundations.

Burn the poisonous debris.

Rebuild it on a foundation of the Constitution.

There was once a social contract out there that we all thought we all signed on to. You know the outlines of the implicit deal. We agreed to give up certain prerogatives and to provide prestige and prosperity to those people – who became the Establishment – who would run our institutions for us. For example, we outsourced our right to avenge ourselves to the justice system and (except for immediate self-defense) to keep order to the police. We would respect and trust the objective, neutral truthtellers, called “journalists,” who would gather and disseminate the news and information we needed to be active citizens. And, in a formal way under our Constitution, we agreed to give government officials enumerated powers and to be bound by the rules implemented via due process and limited by the Bill of Rights.

It was imperfect, as all human endeavors are, but on the whole it worked.

Until now.

Our institutions are old. Most date from just after World War II, or even further back. How about the example of academia? For the most part, in terms of practice, the only major difference between the typical college class today and one a century ago is that the person lecturing the hungover sophomores knows which bathroom to use. What is different is that it doesn’t work anymore – those mush-minded teens are not learning the info they need to be citizens, both because what they are being fed is rancid propaganda and because there are no standards anymore. Oh, and it costs more than the average American makes in a year to get young Kaden or Ashleigh that Collectivist Pottery bachelor’s degree.

And because the institutions are old, the geniuses and innovators who founded those institutions are long dead. Our institutions are run by people who didn’t build them. They inherited them, and like the vast majority of heirs, they are screw-ups. Take a look at the Kennedys if you’re unclear on how generations devolve over time. JFK captained PT 109, became president, and scored with Marilyn Monroe. This generation of Kennedys mostly scores dope. As Instapundit Glenn Reynolds says, we have the worst ruling class in American history.

Moreover, technology is disrupting the comfy university scam. I like to take long walks and listen to Audible. I like Roman history – which is super relevant right now and which has very much influenced my upcoming novel in the People's Republic series – and for about $14 I can listen to entire graduate-level courses on the subject by very best professors in the world. Who needs Harvard – except insecure people who can’t not let drop that they went to Harvard within 30 seconds of meeting you?

Other institutions have also been disrupted by technology. Newspapers still call themselves “newspapers,” but technology has eliminated the “papers” part, while their gross political partisanship has eliminated the “news” part. Hollywood used to be modeled on a few thousand big rooms showing moving, talking pictures, but technology has changed that to a few million small rooms showing moving, talking pictures. While the ability to make content has increased exponentially as the price of production has dropped, Hollywood still tries to maintain control by centralizing distribution via Netflix, Hulu and so on. This is true across the spectrum of institutions. They are trying to maintain the status quo despite their institutional obsolescence because the status quo means control. The institutions’ focus is no longer on doing the jobs those institutions were supposed to do. It is on preserving the institutions in their current, corrupt and inept form, and thereby the power of the corrupt, inept elite that runs those institutions.

What’s this mean? It means that we cannot count on the institutions to do their job – that is, to do those things we need them to do – because their real job is now perpetuating their operators’ grift.

Take the FBI, please – take it to wherever J. Edgar Hoover is buried, and even he’d be freaked out and spinning in his grave and getting all tangle in his burial gown. The FBI used to be the the gold standard, the crème de la crème of law enforcement. And, instead of being Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., rounding up mobsters, bank robbers, and commies, it’s a bunch of fugly geeks awkwardly boinking each other when they aren’t trying to frame the president. The FBI got the Hunter Biden computer about a year ago, a computer full of emails about the Democrat nominee’s crack-curious son’s adventures in influence peddling with Ukrainian robber barons and the Chi-Coms, and if some computer repair guy in New Jersey hadn’t thought to keep a copy of the contents the FBI would have deep-sixed the hard drive just like it did Weiner’s laptop in service of their Establishment masters. In fact, leakers are leaking that it’s the RUSSIANS at it again in order to actively and willfully cover up the biggest corruption story in American history. But hey, rest easy knowing the Eff Bee Eye is all over any garage door pull knots that freak out losing race car drivers.

Law enforcement is supposed to protect us by enforcing the law. Now it lets off rioters but will go gangbusters on you should you defend your family from leftist savages. We have seen that there are always cops who will choose their pension over their duty and bust your church or synagogue for illegal praying. The elite needs minions to do its dirty work and shamefully some doughnut-gobblers have proven themselves only too eager to obey. And even if you do manage to demonstrate that your prosecution is so corrupt that even our garbage DOJ wants to dismiss it, an Establishment judge won’t let you and an appeals court won’t make him even though the law says they must.

You cannot avail yourself of the law. The Establishment, which is supposed to uphold it, ignores it when it limits them and abuses it to restrict you. That seems problematic in the long term.

And then there's the media – well, we knew it was trash, but the last week has even boggled the minds of the most cynical critics. A few weeks ago, there was a collective spasm over the “losers and suckers” claims by four anonymous sources that were refuted by 25 on-the-record sources. This week, there was hard evidence of Biden business badness and the mainstream media swung into action to actively deny and excuse the evidence. The biggest corruption story of all time – a vice president running an influence peddling ring for foreigners – and the media’s response is to tell us there’s nothing to see. And then, when the tech fascists decided to suppress the news, the media actively supported this censorship.

The Establishment has failed. It failed to meet its most basic obligations. What’s this mean?

That means you’re free.

You owe it nothing, not respect, deference, or obedience.

So don’t give it any of these.

See, the Establishment succeeds in spite of its manifest incompetence and greed because of inertia. It perpetuates because we go along with it as if everything is normal. It counts on us thinking what we are witnessing are merely the occasional blips and problems inherent in any human endeavor instead of the systemic failure that it demonstrates. This rot is real and dramatic and, untreated, will be fatal to our country. Remember the Romans? You start changing the rules and sooner or later instead of a Republic you have an emperor who marries his horse.

Conservatism is no longer about conserving; it’s about ripping apart the whole corrupt system and overthrowing the garbage Establishment.

Saturday, October 17, 2020

The Party of Enduring Racism, Bias, and Prejudice


For three years, and without evidence, The New York Times falsely claimed that Donald Trump's presidential campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Thereafter, their hopelessly biased executive editor, Dean Baquet, decided to switch gears. After the Mueller report imploded, at Baquet's direction, the Times would shift its focus of its coverage from the 'Trump-Russia affair' to the president's 'alleged racism.'

"We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well," Baquet said, apparently unaware of the historically profound idiocy of his statement. "Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.” Through daily bogus reporting, the ‘newspaper of record’ would now seek to expose ‘the racism’ of Donald Trump and America in general. 

A Myth for All Time

From 93% to 96% of American media is controlled by leftists, considering book and magazine publishing, major newspapers, Internet tech giants, television, etc. The Left dominates in our schools, Hollywood, and popular culture. The only domains in which the Right has dominance are radio, and perhaps YouTube and blogging.

An enduring Democrat myth propagated for decades, and ramped up since Donald Trump became president, is that the Republican Party is racist. Democrats are able to maintain this myth in part because they dominate public discourse and because most Americans, daily, are concerned with making a living and caring for their families, not with scrutinizing history. Joe Biden tells the Charlottesville “fine people” lie at every appearance, despite video footage to the contrary and Trump’s 20+ denunciation of white supremacist groups. 

Even a cursory review of American history, however, starting with Abraham Lincoln, and the Emancipation Proclamation, reveals that it is the Democrat Party that has practiced and still exhibits fiery racist behavior.

Who formed the Confederate States of America? Was it Republicans? No, it was Southern Democrats. President Lincoln, the 16th in U.S. history, was shot and killed while watching a play, “Our American Cousin,” at Ford's Theater in Washington DC, on April 14th, 1865 by John Wilkes Booth. 

Lincoln was 56 years old, had just been re-elected to his 2nd term and, along with millions of other Americans, was celebrating the end of the U.S. Civil War, which occurred on April 9. Wilkes, a leading actor of that era, was not a Democrat, but was sympathetic to the Democrats and their opposition to Lincoln.

The Dawn Civil Rights            

Who murdered John F. Kennedy, the 36th president of the U.S., in Dallas, on November 22nd 1963? Unquestionably Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot and killed JFK. This is explained in intricate detail by Gerald Posner in his landmark book Case Closed (1993). Mr. Posner dislodged every conceivable stone in reaching his conclusion. After illuminating Posner’s work in a 25-page feature in its publication, U.S. News & World Report declared it would never review another book on the topic because the case was closed. Oswald was a Leftist, who viewed communism favorably and espoused Marxist theory. 

Hesitatingly, JFK championed civil rights. “He ordered his attorney general to submit friends of the court briefs on behalf of civil rights litigants.” He appointed African Americans to positions within his administration. He selected Thurgood Marshall for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. He backed voter registration drives. In a second term, JFK, influenced by Martin Luther King, Jr., was contemplating civil rights legislation. 

Who murdered Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? On April 4, 1968, James Earl Ray, a southern segregationist, assassinated MLK in Memphis, TN. Ray, who fled to England, was subsequently captured.

In summary, the murderers of Lincoln, Kennedy, and King, were politically Left, and certainly not Republicans. Lincoln, Kennedy, and King, each of whom had great potential for expanding the rights and acceptance of African Americans, were cut down in their prime.

A Sordid History

Prior to the Civil War and for 27 months past the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, who owned slaves? Democrats. Republicans, with a few exceptions, did not own slaves. 

Who lynched at least 5,400 blacks, from 1882 to 1968, primarily throughout the South, with the annual peak occurring in the late 1800s, when one party acted to enforce white supremacy? In a word, Democrats.

Who created the Ku Klux Klan? Politifacts says: “Back in the mid-19th century, various Klans in the South acted as a ‘strong arm’ for many local Democratic politicians...” A Confederate general, “believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.” Democrats didn’t launch the KKK, but they played along. 

Who blocked and delayed women's suffrage, for some 79 years? At the critical times, it was Democrats. 

Who upheld segregation throughout the early 1900s, during World War II, and into the 1950s and 1960s? Democrats. Who posted signs that said, "Colored drinking fountain," or, "Colored bathroom?" Democrats.  

Who stood at the doorway of high schools and institutions of higher learning and said to African-Americans you may not attend? Democrats.

Who interned Japanese American citizens during World War II, for three years? President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat.

The Part of Racism, Bias, and Prejudice

Malcolm X once noted, “Both parties are racist, and the Democratic Party is more racist than the Republican Party.” What would prompt this learned man, with vast experience in politics and racial prejudice, to make such a statement?

For 200+ years, Democrats have revealed their racism, bias, and prejudice. Yet, with a Democrat-controlled mainstream media, which party is cast as being racist and biased? Which presidents and politicians are deemed racist? Republicans. 

Throughout time, Republicans have not always acted as saints, but they can’t hold a candle in our society to the Democrat party when it comes to racism, bias, and prejudice.

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

The Biden-Harris Orwellian Redefining of “Court-Packing”

 Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are redefining the words “court packing” in a manner worthy of George Orwell’s 1984, ironically previewing how a packed (i.e., expanded) Supreme Court would redefine the Constitution’s words, abolishing our democratic republic as it has existed for over 200 years.

Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of our Constitution is that it is a written document. America’s Constitution is the first and oldest written constitution in the world. Like any document, it consists of words on paper, so its meaning rests entirely on the meaning of those words.

Every American have vital interests in those words, including me. I serve on the board of a religious-liberty law firm, concerned that the First Amendment words “free speech,” and “establishment” and “free exercise” of religion must have a clear and fixed meanings. I serve on the NRA board, so am concerned about the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.” I serve on the board of the Club for Growth, and so focus on the words in the Constitution’s Tax Clause, Spending Clause, and Commerce Clause. As a black man, I care about the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of “due process” and the “equal protection of the laws.”

These fundamental rights survive only when those words have unchangeable meanings.

“A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were,” Amy Coney Barrett said today, speaking of Justice Scalia. “Sometimes that meant reaching results he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.”

This is why court-packing would destroy our form of government. As Justice Antonin Scalia famously explained, it is our Constitution’s structural protections of separation of powers and checks and balances that actually holds tyranny at bay to protect the people. The greatest check the Supreme Court has over Congress and a president is an independent judiciary with the power to strike down government actions that violate the fixed meaning of the Constitution’s words.

“Court-packing” refers to a president and Congress controlled by the same party to pass a law increasing the number of Supreme Court seats, then packing those seats with justices that will rubber-stamp whatever the government does. They redefine the Constitution’s words to give a pass to whatever the ruling party wants. s

That would destroy a check that is essential to our very form of government, which is why it is the single greatest issue facing the voters in this election. Biden and Harris must not be allowed to continue refusing to answer whether they will pack the Supreme Court should they gain power—a refusal that implies they will do precisely that.

Instead, they redefine “court-packing.” In Orwell’s frightening book, the all-powerful government brainwashed the people with the slogans: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. Words had no meaning.

The Harris-Biden ticket (their term, not mine) is instead redefining “court-packing.” Article II of the Constitution specifies that Supreme Court justices are appointed through two-party agreement, with the president choosing whom to nominate and the Senate choosing whether to advise and consent (which we call “confirmation”).

All 29 times when there have been election-year Supreme Court vacancies, presidents have offered nominees to fill them. Twenty-two of our 45 presidents have done so. When held by the same party, the Senate almost always confirms. When held by the opposition party, the Senate almost never confirms. This is the normal constitutional order.  

Yet Biden and Harris are redefining “court-packing” to refer to that ordinary process, inverting the meaning of a term that threatens our constitutional system of government.

Americans must reject Biden and Harris’s bid to eradicate the Constitution’s separation of powers and checks and balances, condemning America to the dystopian one-party rule Orwell warned could be in our future.

What Will Happen If the Democrats Pack the Supreme Court?


Exponential growth. It's why plagues are so dangerous and compound interest is so wonderful.

It's also why the Democrats' flirting with court packing could destroy the Supreme Court and, with it, America as we know it.

The following is a reasonable scenario:

Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, which gives conservatives a 6-3 advantage (or 5-4, given that Chief Justice John Roberts has essentially become a swing vote).

Then, in January, having retained the Democrat-majority House, a President Joe Biden and a newly Democrat-controlled Senate decide to undo the advantage. Congress passes and Biden signs a new law expanding the Court to 15 members. Biden appoints six new liberal justices, handing the left a 9-6 majority -- a 60% advantage.

What happens when the Republicans regain power and they want a 60% conservative advantage? As a bit of algebra shows, to reverse the Democrats' 9-6 advantage, they'd have to expand the Court by 7.5 members. Of course, they can't nominate half a justice, so they'd probably round up to eight. Regardless, the Republicans, to gain a 60% advantage, must expand the Court by more than the Democrats did -- by eight, as opposed to six.

The parties would surely continue to insist upon a 60% advantage, meaning that, with each switch in power, they'd have to expand the Court's size by 50%. The key thing to note is that they would have to expand the court not by a constant number but by a constant percentage This is what would cause exponential growth. If, for example, one side insisted on a 65% advantage and the other followed suit, they'd have to expand the Court by 86% at each switch in power.

How often would such switches in power occur? One occurred in 1992, when Democrats won the House, Senate and presidency. Others occurred in 2000, 2008 and 2016. And if the polls are right, another will occur in 2020. Such power switches occur about every eight years, perhaps slightly more frequently.

Let's err on the side of being less alarmist and assume that the switch would only occur every 10 years. Let's similarly assume that the parties would only insist upon a 60% advantage.

Under these minimal parameters, the Court would expand by 50% every 10 years. In 100 years, the Court would grow by a factor of approximately 58 (1.5 raised to the power of 10), and instead of nine justices, the Supreme Court would consist of 522 justices.

Surely, one would be tempted to think, voters and the two parties would see these problems, and accordingly, such growth wouldn't continue. But why not? Imagine the following scenario: In the year 2120, the Court comprises 522 justices (313 conservatives and 209 liberals). That November, the Democrats retake the House, Senate and presidency. Following precedent, they decide to regain their advantage and expand the Court to 783 justices (470 liberals and 313 conservatives).

Some voters might say, "Enough is enough." However, Democrats could reasonably counter that (1) "It's what the Republicans did last time. It's our turn now"; (2) "Is 783 really that much larger than 522?"; (3) "Only by expanding the Court can we do things such as guarantee a woman's right to choose and ensure racial and social justice. Do we really want to sacrifice those goals just to keep the Court a smaller size?"

Further, in such a scenario, no voter would be able to remember when the Court was smaller than 40 justices, much less just nine. Would they really care if it were expanded a little more?

Of course, the scenario would continue to repeat.

In other words, if the Democrats do as many of their leading members want them to do (including Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor Pete Buttigieg), as The Atlantic urges them to do, as vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris told The New York Times she is "absolutely open to," and as at least one New York Times columnist advocates, we will no longer have a legislature and a supreme judicial branch. We will essentially have two legislatures (at least when Democratic appointees -- justices willing to read left-wing political and social goals into the Constitution -- hold the majority of seats).

It will be the end of the Supreme Court as we know it, the end of the balance of power among the three branches of government and, therefore, the end of America as we know it.

Would the Democrats do it? Given the left's record of destroying whatever it touches -- most obviously, the universities, high schools and journalism, and most recently, sports and the sciences -- if you are a betting person, you should bet on it.

This is yet another reason everything is at stake in this election.