May God Be With Us in 2021

So, here it is, New Year's Eve of the year 2020.  I have been reading Kurt Schlichter's books:  Peoples' Republic, Indian Country, Wildfire, and Collapse. I am currently reading Crisis. I really hadn't read a novel in years, but these are good little pieces of escape literature.  They are also meant to be warnings, but unfortunately the Left seems to be taking these novels as how to manuals, rather like they seem to take Orwell's novel 1984.  Each time I think the Left can not descend any further into insanity and unreality, they seem to break new records.

Schlichter has a cheesy list of predictions for 2021, entitled My Prediction for 2021 is Pain. It tracks with my own thoughts on 2021. I hope for a miracle, but at the moment I feel as if we Constitutional conservatives are surrounded.  Indeed, I am reminded of the World War II Battle of Bastogne. The Commander at Bastogne was ordered to hold his position against overwhelming odds.  If you don't know the history of this famous battle, go and read about it.  The Commander at Bastogne held out until General Patton could bring his Third Army to bear.  When asked to surrender by the German Commander, who clearly had all the advantages, he replied "Nuts."  But I fear we can not expect a General Patton to arrive.

Schlichter starts out with the big one:

Let’s get this out-of-the-way. I predict President Asterisk will be inaugurated in January despite the massive cheating and incompetence that stole the election from the American people. Yeah, I know it’s not fair or right, but that’s my assessment of what will happen, and if you want smoke blown up your Swalwell, keep walking. While it is 2020, and it is Trump, and therefore anything can happen, I still think it is highly unlikely that any kind of constitutional maneuver or even the most meritorious court challenge is going to validate Donald Trump’s victory in the last election, even though it’s painfully clear that he did win and was only deprived of the victory by a combination of incompetence, scams and outright fraud. And I predict many Americans will refuse to accept this ancient pervert as their president. I know I will never name him without adding an *. I also know I’m not going to rest until the left pays. How about you?

He follows that up with the fact that, under a President Asterisk administration, the Durham investigation will close up shop. No one will be prosecuted, nobody who actually deserves it will go to jail. Sorry.  On the other hand, if Trump isn't reelected,  the Republican party is finished as a national party.  Good, as this allows us to make a new party.  But, we also need to make a concerted effort to march back through the institutions.  It will be a decades long effort, if we can keep that Klause Schwab guy at bay.  And of course if President Asterisk doesn't deliver us to the Chinese.

Schlichter concludes with this:

Dishonorable mentions include my prediction of the epic suck-upening to China, and to Iran, and to every other America-hating nest of scumbags around the globe, as well as our government once again listening to creepy Swedish urchins about the climate hoax, and its inevitable focus on trying to silence and disenfranchise us. But here’s one more prediction…we will win. Maybe not in 2021, but mark my words, the side of freedom and justice cannot lose. Victory is coming. And you can hold me to it.

The hero of Schlichter's books, Kelly Turnbull, would not say this. Such a man can not have this kind of faith: he has seen too much evil. And it is only faith that can inspire someone to say this. So here is my prayer, may God be with us in 2021.

Update:  Maybe a little bit of hope?

Good Luck, Keep Praying, and Stay on the side of God

 There is quite a bit of news coming out today.  So much, in fact, that one can feel somewhat overwhelmed by all of it.  But, if I had to pick one thing, it would probably be Ron Wright's piece at the American Thinker today entitled A Call to Arms for All Patriots to Come to the Aid of their Country. The piece is rather long, and if, as I urge you to do, check each linked article, it will take a lot of time to digest. One linked article that you should especially go and read in its entirety is titled The New World Order. Wright has done an extensive investigation of this one area, but it bears on what has happened in the 2020 presidential election. Wright concludes that a RICO case can be made. But will it?

Nov. 3, 2020, a new day of infamy, a devious covert attack shook the United States of America to its core. This attack was worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The perpetrators were our elitist aristocracy and political class that reject the concept of self-governing by We the People. Complicit were our unelected administrative state, the Deep State, the mainstream media (MSM), Big Tech, The New World Order (Globalists – The Great Reset), and hostile foreign governments, specifically China. This evil coalition seeks to subvert the People's will by undermining our core beliefs, sovereignty, and overthrowing our government as created by our founders. As President Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

As President Trump said, this coalition stole the 2020 Presidential election to prevent a duly elected President from serving a second term. This action was yet another coup to conceal the many past criminal acts of these perpetrators, e.g., treason, misprision of treason, rebellion or insurrection, and advocating the government's overthrow. Including violating the People's civil rights under the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments and many other serious federal felonies that so far have gone unpunished.

This coalition's collective actions are a criminal conspiracy or a criminal enterprise, as defined in RICO, as I wrote previously in this article. See this article by Glenn Reynolds (AKA, Instapundit), a University of Tennessee law professor. Our law enforcement and other government agencies covered up these crimes - the Secretary of State, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Director of National Intelligence, and others. They all went rogue and failed to defend the United States against all foreign and domestic enemies.

Note, there are many more links in the original article that I have not included in the quote, but I suggest, ne urge you to check each on of them out.

As an experienced investigator, Ron Wright makes the case for an indictment on RICO charges. But who will bring the case? The DOJ? Fat chance. And in any case, who will hear the case? The courts have shown themselves to be as incurious as have our mainstream media. And Sidney Powell is apparently building a RICO case against Smartmatic machines and Dominion software, but again I ask, if the courts won't hear it, what good does it ultimately do? Of course we have to at least try everything we can to legally bring the case before the people. But when we are blocked at every turn, what then?

At stake is whether our country survives as a constitutional republic from this covert, insidious attack both from within by the aid and comfort by elected and unelected officials and others owing allegiance to the United States and by the assistance of hostile foreign governments and The New World Order. As Benjamin Franklin said, our government is, A republic, if you can keep it. As explained by Richard Berman, “. . . democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.” [My emphasis] We must preserve the rule of law and put an end to this unequal system of justice — rules for thee, but not for me. As John Adams said, “[We are] a Government of Laws, Not of Men.”

I do not want to make light of Mr. Wrights work here, because he has done a yeoman's task pulling together so many disparate threads. I am in his debt. But again, I ask, who will have the courage to actually bring all these threads together to make a case in a court? What court will have the courage hear the evidence?

An interesting take on the current state of affairs in the United States is an article, also at the American Thinker by Jon N. Hall entitled Tainted Electors in Post-Legal America

Hall explains:

There's an old observation that goes something like this: the problem is not what's illegal; it's what's legal. In other words, it is that which is allowed that plagues us. Just as vexing and corrosive as the issue of election fraud is that of whether or not the elections conducted in the battleground states were even legal. Indeed, legality may be the overarching central issue in the 2020 elections, not fraud, not cyber-security. So the MSM's droning on about the nonexistence of "widespread voter fraud" and the firing of Chris Krebs is just more of their obfuscations.

America's big problem of late is not just with the trashing of constitutional norms; it also involves the left's lack of appreciation for the very idea of law itself. America seems to be entering a "post-legal" twilight, where laws on the books are not enforced and where governors and mayors create capricious new "laws" out of whole cloth that are clear violations of inconvenient pre-existing laws.

Sometimes post-legal "laws" can have the imprimatur of the legal, as when a law has been enacted by lawmakers. So a new law that is contrary to already existing law is allowed until it receives judicial review and is struck down. But what if the courts don't grant certiorari and decline to review?

Where we see abundant evidence that America has entered a post-legal era is in the battleground states of the 2020 federal elections. Laws and even constitutions were ignored and superseded. The prime example is Pennsylvania. Act 77, the law that legalized mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, violated the state's own constitution. And then PA's own Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution by usurping the power of the state's Legislature. If that's all true, then the election in the Keystone State was illegal. So how can Congress accept the votes of Pennsylvania's electors on January 6?

Anyone who denies that significant election fraud occurred in November is either dishonest or a fool (here and here). But the issue before Congress on January 6 should not focus on fraud; it should mainly be about the legality of the elections in the battleground states. Some have argued that it falls to the vice president to rule January 6 on the legality of the elections in the battleground states.

As long as the Left has existed, and it has existed since man first walked the earth, it has not been concerned with the law itself, but with the appearance of legality. They always want power, but if they can get it by feigning legal means to do so, that is better. They don't have to fool everyone, just enough to get them into power. Then they pass laws, which may not be legal, but by that time, who is to stop them. Case in point is the proposed gun laws and confiscations. The Constitution is pretty clear, yet if the courts refuse to rule such action unconstitutional, they effectively have nullified the Constitution.  

I keep hearing people say that 2021 can't be worse.  I am here to tell you that it can, and I think it will.  You must prepare to the degree you can for what risks you see coming your way.  All I can say is Good Luck, keep praying and remember to stay on the side of God.  

Update, from the American Partisan right here.

From Joondeph's mouth to God's ear

 Brian Joondeph has been spending a lot of electrons on the stolen election.  On thing he has noted on a number of occasions is that it looks like the Democrats are getting away with this theft.  And of course, if there are no consequences, why wouldn't they do this again.  In fact, why wouldn't they always do it.  In today's article at the American Thinker he wonders aloud Is Nothing Happening? Or is Trump Channeling Sun Tzu?

I am as impatient as Joondeph is. After all, The Durham investigation has been going on for...what...two years? And yet no one has actually be convicted of anything, although a low level lawyer has been fingered. You can't convince me that he is the only one. But there it is. Why wouldn't they attempt to commit a coup on the next Republican president? Of course, this is years after the government did nothing about operation Fast and Furious that waled guns to Mexico, and resulted in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Now, here we have election fraud on such a grand scale that the only way Courts can avoid taking notice is to cover their eyes, and ears, and refuse to speak of it.

Perhaps more is going on than I can see, but what is visible to 75 million Trump supporters, those who have endured ridicule and scorn for supporting their president, is that nothing is happening. This is Trump’s administration and he’s the boss. He hires and fires, just as he did in the real estate development world and on “The Apprentice.”

The buck stops with him. If nothing is happening, then that’s on him. Is he flailing away in a vain attempt to win a second term? After all that he has been through and overcome, not only to get elected in 2016, but also to stay in office for four years, accomplishing more in one term than most presidents do in two, is he about to lose it all to a senile grifter no more qualified to be president of the United States than a manager at a bowling alley?

In the end, Joondeph is hopeful that Trump will lower the boom on these traitors. I say from Dr. Joondeph's mouth to God's ear.

A note for Gun Owners in Georgia

 So, here's my take on the Georgia runoff elections:  I don't trust Republican politicians as far as I can spit, and I don't trust Democrat politicians even that far.  Warnock is an absolute nutcase, and a miserable human being, while Ossoff reportedly has financial ties to China.  But then, apparently so does Georgia Republican's of State  Raffensperger, whose brother is CTO of Huawei, a Chinese military company, among other things, apparently spies on Americans.  But, I would rather see Perdue and Loeffler in the Senate than Warnock and Ossoff. 

 Today, at Bearing Arms Tom Knighton notes that The Georgia Senate Race is Basically a Referedum on the Second Amendment. Of course, it is more than that. It seems that this race may determine whether the United States will continue as a Constitutional Republic, or sink into the poverty and tyranny of a Socialist, Communist government. More on that in a minute. If I lived in Georgia, as a gun owner and bearer of arms, I would definitely get out and vote. And you know for whom I would cast my votes. Knighton is correct that the only way to overcome the effects of the Democrat's stealing the election is to overwhelm it with votes for Perdue and Loeffler.

On the subject of Communism, I was watching a three part series last night entitled Apocalypse - Stalin on the absolute horror of this paranoid, whose craving for power was insatiable. Of course, unlike traditional American governance in which power is given up when a term is over, and we have a peaceful transfer, Stalin could not count on that happening. He had murdered so many, including fellow revolutionaries, that he couldn't be sure he himself would not be targeted.

I think he truly believed himself to be the smartest guy in the room. And if he ever got the impression that he might not be the smartest guy, the other guy soon disappeared.  He also didn't believe in God, so he felt had no limits to how he could oppress people.

And oppress people he did.  In Stalin's Russia, if you were in the Communist party, you got plenty of food, a warm place to live, and enjoyed entertainments and other goodies. On the other hand, if you were just a poor slob who wasn't a member of the party, you were left cold, and hungry, to either freeze or starve to death. Not, of course, that it was any different under the Czar. But that is my point. It is always this way with Socialists.  The promise wonderful things to the working people, but when the get absolute power, they oppress these people.  It is this way in Cuba, in Venezuela, in North Korea, and of course, in China.  Those Nike shoes you are wearing?  Yeah, they were produced using Chinese slave labor.

Oh, and a final note for Georgia gun owners, if you were counting on the Second Amendment to protect your rights to arms, our Supreme Court has proved itself useless.  They do not care about your rights.  If you want to defend your rights, you will have to do it yourself.  And the first way you can defend your rights is by voting.  

A Leftist Has An Epiphany On Guns?

 At Self Reliance Central Can Mitchell has an article entitled Another Leftist Has An Epiphany On Guns. I have said for years that guns should not be a liberal versus conservative issue. All people who choose to exercise their rights should do so, for all the reasons envisioned by our founders, including self defense, sport, and of course defending the community against enemies foreign and domestic. Only Leftists, who want to overthrow the Constitutional order what to get rid of guns. They want to get rid of them because people with guns can refuse to be intimidated.

Please go read the entire article.  Who knows, perhaps there is hope.

What denying election fraud accomplishes

 Mark Dwyer explains  What denying election fraud accomplishes.

There were voluminous reports, from eyewitnesses and experts, of widespread election fraud in the so-called battle states and beyond. Specific allegations were made, and evidence of election rules violations and statistical anomalies were collected. Yet the courts refused to listen to virtually all witnesses and experts, rejected most of the evidence, and refused to subpoena more evidence requested by the plaintiffs. Many state government officials and some top representatives of companies supplying voting machines and software categorically denied any election fraud.

So, on the one hand, there is plenty of evidence strongly suggesting that the widely observed election fraud took place during the 2020 presidential elections. On the other hand, all we have are assurances of the election fraud–deniers that there was no election fraud, which were later changed to admissions that although election fraud did take place, it wasn't large enough to sway the results. No verifiable facts that would clearly invalidate the specific election fraud allegations were presented to the public as of time of this writing, while quite a lot of obstruction of investigations, like denials to subject the vote-counting software and hardware to examination by independent experts, took place. Some of this obstruction had all appearances of a cover-up.

I must say that anyone who, knowing the above, claims that Joe Biden has received required majorities of legitimate votes to become a duly elected president is either stupid or willing to cover up the truth about the rigged elections that we have allowed to continue in America.

He goes on to offer a number of reasons, most of which are craven or cowardly or nakedly opportunistic. I can almost, if not admire, at least understand such motives. The craven ones however, such as those afraid that even hearing the evidence of election fraud might cause Leftists to unleash their violent arms such as Antifa and BLM.

Reason 3: The election fraud–denier was afraid of violence that investigation of election fraud may lead to.

Unfortunately, many of those in positions of power who could order serious and impartial investigations of the alleged election fraud and possible overturning of the results, if proven fraudulent or invalid, were concerned with a threat of violent riots of left's militant organizations, like BLM and Antifa. Some could have been trying to save our country a civil war or something equally horrible, while others were afraid for their own safety. As much as I disagreed with their decision to support the cover-up of election fraud, their position had a dose of rationality.

...snip...

The above realization implies that we are seeing a dawn of mobocracy in the U.S. as a replacement for our Constitutional Republic as a form of government. That spells out bad news for virtually everyone, including even the mobsters. We need brave leaders who will put the safety of law-abiding Americans in front of these leaders' personal safety and political interest.

Please go read the entire article and check out the other 4 reasons, or excuses as the case may be for denying what we can all see plainly in front of our eyes. Dwyer concludes with yet another excuse, that we must maintain trust in our elections. But this is to beg the question. Trust in free and fair elections is not gained by asserting a free and fair election. We have trust when election fraud is ferreted out, and those who commit fraud are punished. Until then, at least half the electorat wil feel cheated.

Those with the power and authority to do the right thing need to do the right thing

 I have been wondering, as I noted yesterday, why the courts in general, and SCOTUS in particular, seem uninterested in even hearing any evidence of election fraud..  The media, of course, keep saying there is no evidence.  But that is not true.  What is more accurate is that those tasked with hearing evidence and deciding remedies have failed to hear any of it.  It is as if the courts have taken on the roll of the three famous monkeys, See no evil, Hear no evil, and Speak no evil.

Today, at the American Thinker Eric Georgatos wonders Why Sidney Powell gets the Galileo treatment? He then speculates on three possible answers, none of which are good for us.

Observers of human history might have to go back all the way to Galileo to find a ruling class as determined to cancel someone as much as today’s is to cancel Sidney Powell in response to her single-minded devotion to bringing the truth of the full scale of the 2020 election fraud to light.

...snip...

The American ruling class of 2020 is bizarrely opposed to allocating any oxygen to what Sidney Powell has discovered and is alleging about Dominion Voting Systems (and others), about vote-shifting algorithms and partial decimal vote counts, and about vote manipulation showing up throughout the country. Even Rudy Giuliani, the President’s attorney, and Mark Meadows, the President’s Chief of Staff, seem hellbent on publicly keeping their distance from Powell -- and on keeping President Trump from getting too close to or aligned with Powell.

Other elements of the ruling class -- such as SCOTUS and much of the rest of the federal judiciary -- won’t even look at the evidence Powell has assembled. They just ‘don’t want to go there’, and so they make up legal excuses -- e.g., lack of standing -- and wave off the substance of the allegations.

What gives? Why are they behaving this way?

As I said earlier, Georgatos speculates that there are three possible reasons, none of which are good for us, and probably not for them in the long run  But then most of these people are more into short term profits, and letting the long term take care of itself. The first speculation is that perhaps many on both sides of the aisle are in on the fix. I personally think this explains a lot of it, but not all. Federal Court judges and justices are appointed for life, and thus do not need to have election fraud for their careers to continue. The second explanation, however has merit with Federal judges: fear and intimidation. Can this explain why so many republican appointees to the Federal bench seem to suddenly become liberal stalwarts? Who knows, since no one is talking. But it explains a lot.

The third explanation is a variant of Galileo’s experience: the conclusion that follows from the evidence Sidney Powell has put together is so devastating to Americans’ view of how their country is supposed to be governed that it simply can’t be given voice or visibility. The truth would shock Americans into a complete loss of faith and trust in their government. The truth would so rock our world -- that we’re all being lied to and manipulated so constantly and in so many ways -- that we’ll cease to function in any manner resembling law and order. Under such circumstances, the ruling class would have determined that Americans ‘can’t handle the truth’…so they can’t be allowed to know the truth.

The third explanation seems the most unlikely, but it may ultimately be a mixture of all three. 

Look, either way it ultimately turns out, at least a third of the country will be upset.  If it is the Democrat Leftists who are the disappointed party, there will be riots, burning and looting, and probably some murder as well.  But if it is Trump supporters who are disappointed, do not count on them taking this fraudulent election lying down either.  If the Constitution ultimately fails them, who knows what they may decide to do?

Thus it is important that those who have the power and authority to do the correct thing actually DO THE CORRECT THING.  Doing the right thing is defensible, while doing the wrong thing will not be either in the near term or as history judges politicians.

Has the Supreme Court Ended the American Experiment?

So, it is Christmas, pne of the High Holy Days of the year, but certainly not the Holiest. That would be Easter, the day our Lord and Christ, Jesus rose from the dead. The result was the salvation of all who accepted the fact from the results of their own sin. It may seem strange, but today I am highlighting an article at the American Thinker written by Marlo Horne, entitled What are the new SCOTUS justices thinking?. It is a rather long article, in which Horne points out a number of reasons why the conservative justices should have overridden the liberal justices and the Chief Justice, and heard the cases that have come before it on election fraud.

There is the Constitutional issue. After all, if an election can be bought by the fraudulent voting of a few states, the entire Constitutional frame work is upended. Then there is the issue of courage in the face of threatened violence. If law enforcement does not stand up for the right against violence, who will. But then there is the issue of the justices' own legacy.  What will the members of the Court be remembered for of they shy away from doing the right thing.

I have puzzled over why the Supreme Court would have turned down this case. After all, if the Congress doesn't overturn the election, and the Biden administration takes office, then the Democrats will have been rewarded for their perfidy. Without consequences, why won't they do it again, always, effectively creating one party rule. And of course, making policies that benefit the rich and connected, while making everyone else poorer and more miserable is what they will do.

The new SCOTUS justices have to be aware that our United States Constitution is under attack, not just from anarchists, but also from numerous politicians and the media. Freedom of speech, the right to own a weapon, and property rights are all being attacked, and to a fundamental degree, our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is being increasingly denied. There has been extreme violence in several of our major cities, which does not meet even token resistance from their governors and mayors. Lives have already been lost. In addition, the rioting has destroyed numerous businesses, thereby destroying property and denying liberty and pursuit of happiness for those business-owners.

There is a report that the chief justice, John Roberts, is afraid of inciting riots and said he would tell the other justices how to vote. Considering John Roberts's actions in the past that appeared to be politically motivated, he may well be concerned that a SCOTUS ruling could incite violence. His determination to uphold the Constitution seems to be weak at best. However, the older conservative justices, Alito and Thomas, proved that they were willing to hear cases about the fraudulent election when they dissented in the Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al. case. So why wouldn't the new SCOTUS justices follow the lead of Alito and Thomas, especially when the issue of free and fair elections is so vital to our Constitution?

The threat of violence is always present in our country. That is why we have laws against violence and law enforcement personnel to enforce those laws (at least we have had). If SCOTUS makes rulings based on the threat of violence, then those who are willing to commit violence are in control, and our laws become inconsequential. During the past year, we have seen governors and mayors refuse to confront violence and even condone it. Consequently, it is only by free and fair elections that politicians can be held accountable and, if necessary, removed, so that responsible men and women can take their place. Free and fair elections are required to elect people who will preserve our Constitution.

Please read Horne's entire article. The Justices could still take up the case, but time is running out.

It is hard to imagine that the new SCOTUS justices are not concerned about the future and their reputations. We are not only at a crossroads; we are also at a precipice. If we go over that precipice by allowing election fraud, whether or not we ever recover is uncertain, perhaps impossible. Free and fair elections may well become a thing of the past. If the new SCOTUS justices choose not to fulfill their responsibilities, there will be millions of us who will condemn them for their lack of action — an especially bitter condemnation because we were once their most ardent supporters. But worse, when their children realize that their constitutional rights are being increasingly denied, they will eventually ask their parents the poignant question: why did you not protect our Constitution and ensure that I could live in a free country, as you have done most of your life?

An even worse condemnation will be the thousands upon thousands of lonely white crosses in fields across Europe that will forever stand in silent condemnation of their failure. To anyone who can imagine unspoken words, the voices of our fallen patriots will be loud and clear: we were willing to give our lives for freedom. could you not at least write a few words?

One wonders if the Supreme Court has ended the American Experiment?

Have a merry Communist Christmas

Right here. You have been told that these restrictions are about a virus, and are based on sience. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. They are really about "training" you to obey your overlords no matter how silly and inconsistent or incompetent their orders may be. Go and watch J. P. Sears as he takes you through a Merry Communist Christmas.

A Righteous Cause

 Tom Knighton over at the blog Bearing Arms has a piece today that notes that If UK Gun Laws Are So Effective, What Are These Charges, Then. I have noted before the extremely restrictive nature of the gun laws in the UK. It is virtually impossible for a person to legally have a rifle or pistol in the UK. Oh, you can have them under tightly restricted settings like having to have them stored under lock and key at a gun club. But you can't keep them at home for self defense.  Certainly no one who might need one can afford to have a gun.

Of course, they don't have a Second Amendment. But, the truth is that Second Amendment or not, they also have a right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, which includes self defense.

This isn’t the first case of such a thing I’ve written about in the United Kingdom, either. While firearms may not be as common there as they are in the United States, both the UK and Australia are islands. That makes it a bit more difficult to smuggle guns into the country, though not impossible. Because of that difficulty, you’d think they’d have a pretty good lock on the illicit firearm market.

Yet I keep seeing stories about people being arrested for having illegal firearms there. I write about a fair number of them, but I don’t have time to write about all of them, even if I wanted to.

What all of that does, though, is make it clear that the UK’s gun laws aren’t nearly the answer gun control activists here in the States would have you believe. They don’t keep guns out of criminal hands, they don’t prevent violent crime, and they don’t really do much of anything except keep law-abiding citizens from being able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

No, the UK doesn’t recognize such a right, that doesn’t mean such a right doesn’t exist for subjects of the crown. A right to be armed is the natural right of all people, one that must be defended and preserved.

They didn’t do that in the UK and now criminals can get guns without issue while law-abiding citizens are effectively disarmed. There’s nothing right about this in the least.

Perhaps restoring the rights of others is a way to preserve our own. At one time, Wayne LaPierre was arguing for the right to arms of people in the UK. But the NRA has been put on its heals by internal struggles and a lawsuit by an anti-gun AG.  As gun owners, we need to take the offensive again.  It's a righteous cause.

The Covidocracy is Socialism By Another Name

 Today, at the American Partisan the Grey Man has an article that is worth your while entitled Covidocracy. He makes the point that the entire Chinese Flu pandemic panic has been about the socialist taking control. They do not waste anything if they can strike fear in the hearts of Americans and get them to behave as they want them to. And so it has been with the Chinese Flu. The death rate is actually somewhere around 0.01%, which translates as 1 death in 10,000 people. Now, it is true that any death is a tragedy, I get it. At the same time, we are all going to die. The minute you are born, you risk death each and every day of your life. Sorry to break it to you. And most of those who die of Covid-19 are in that age bracket where death happens frequently. I know, because I am in that age bracket.

The meat of the article is here:

Covid has been used to facilitate the theft of an election and a coup. It was used to justify mail-in ballots, which are the easiest guaranteed way to rig an election. Real pandemics don’t allow people time and opportunity to stage a coup. Real pandemics don’t make all of the elites richer. Real pandemics don’t pick and choose between races and religions. A real pandemic wouldn’t side with big box mega-corps over small businesses. A real pandemic won’t differentiate between a peaceful, right-wing protest and a violent, communist riot. In a real pandemic, we wouldn’t catch the rich and powerful breaking all of the rules, because they would be afraid to do so. If this was a real pandemic, you wouldn’t be able to go to Walmart. You wouldn’t want to go to Walmart, because you wouldn’t want to get sick and later end up in one of the burning piles of bodies you pass on the way.

They have convinced millions of people that just seeing family for the Christmas season, going to church and daring to show your face in public is selfish and dangerous.

I believe this is all social engineering on a massive scale. Eventually the vaccine will be essentially mandatory. Perhaps they won’t be able to physically force a needle into your arm, but they can be very persuasive about getting you to accept it “willingly”. See the title photo above. That is not a joke meme.

In the meantime, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns the US in almost every way. Covid has assisted the CCP marvelously. They already had a grip on American academia, where professors and scientists all over the nation have been paid to conduct research on behalf of the CCP, and send the data to them. Chinese intellectual theft is why no one in America should give a damn about the debt we supposedly “owe” China. They have stolen ten times more than whatever we have borrowed, and now they’ve done irreparable damage to the American economy and the election system.

The CCP owns controlling shares in many movie studios in Hollywood, which now pumps out non-stop anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-Americana propaganda. Hardcore degeneracy, feminism, communist and socialist ideology and pedophilia is the name of the game. Whatever it takes to ruin the soul of a once great people.

I really couldn't put it any plainer than that. Unlike the Grey Man, I do not believe the vaccine is dangerous, but at the same time, I am not anxious to take it. I do get a flu vaccine each year. On the other hand, they "authorities" are pushing it a little to hard, which makes me naturally wary. I have survived this long while going about my business as maskless as I can be. It's been working for me so far.

Which brings me to another article, this one by Scott Morefield at  Towhall.com yesterday entitled New Study Shows Mask Mandates Had Zero Effect in Florida or Nationwide, But The Lie Constinues. There are various methodologies used in these diverse studies. The point of all of them, though, is that masks did not slow or stop the spread of the virus.  Go read the whole article for yourself, and make up your own mind.

Look, whether or not you wear a piece of cloth over your face, the truth is most people wear a mask every day.  Most people have secrets they would rather their peers not know.  People fear that their secrets, if exposed, will be used by their enemies to do them harm.  We have seen how Eric Swalwell has been put through the ringer because of his dalliance with a Chinese spy, caught as he was in the classic "honeypot" trap.  Now, I am not sympathizing with Swalwell, who would take our guns in a heartbeat and leave us to the wolves, but I am saying that peoples' fears are not unreasonable.  On the other hand, someone like Mike Lindell, founder of My Pillow has revealed his flaws, and freed himself to be who he is.  He has taken away the power that his foes might have had over him.

Mask mandates are nothing more than an attempt to get each of us, individuals all, to hide behind a covering that makes each of us look the same.  But we are not the same, and we must resist.  While we are each of us God's children, we are also each of us unique and different from everyone that has come before us, or will come after.  This is what the socialists want to stamp out.

And, of course, you want to know why?  Why is it so important to rid the world of the American nation by any means necessary, and frankly, as brutally as they can make it.  I will answer:  It is because a nation, under God, that recognizes individual, as opposed to collective, rights stands as a rebuke to Leftism.  The fact that this system is so prosperous, and that so many want in is a slap in the face of the Leftists.  They seethe every day it remains to taunt them.  But taunt them we must, for we are on God's side.

The Ammo Shortage

 Over at Townhall.com Beth Baumann has an article that tells the story of of the current ammo shortage straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. Actually, it is from the president of Vista Outdoors, which makes Remington, Federal, CCI and Speer Ammunition

Baumann:

It should not come as a surprise that there is an ammo shortage. It happens every few years, especially during presidential elections. Look at what happened during the 2012 election cycle. Second Amendment-loving Americans were concerned about the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton. What did they do? Bought guns and stocked up on ammo. The same thing happened this year, in part because of a Biden-Harris ticket, and also because of the pandemic. Americans spent more time outside, hunting, fishing and recreating. And guess what? In order to bag a buck you need ammo (assuming you are using a firearm). Every month we have seen record-breaking new numbers of gun owners. In order for those folks to feel confident in their ability to protect themselves, they are buying ammo and hitting the range. They are also keeping a stash for self-defense.

Of course, anything can happen, but all things being equal, the supply will eventually catch up with demand. In the meantime, you can use such techniques as dry firing, and other things that you can use, such as Laser Lyte trainer  to practice without using valuable ammunition.  If you have ammunition, perhaps you don't need to buy more for now.

The Police Have No Duty to Protect

 David Hardy over at the blog Of Arms and the Law has a post, the subject matter of which is the Parkland School shooting and the families' subsequent suit against the county and various officials. Hardy brings up the fact that the suit was dismissed essentially on the grounds that the police have no duty to protect individual citizens. The police, in other words, are not your body guards. Indeed, being a police officer and a body guard are two different skill sets, though they partially overlap.

To make the point of this post even more stark, though, let me lay it out for you:  you, alone, are responsible for your safety and security.  In the event of trouble, you should, if you have the time, call the police.  They may be there in time, who knows?  But in any case, you must be prepared to defend yourself.  You do have a weapon, right?

In saying the above, I am not in any way supporting the notion of defunding the police.  In fact, the police do serve a vital purpose in our community.  First, the police are charged with enforcing the law.  The effect of this is that criminals generally do not break the law right in front of a police officer.  To see the effect of this, recall that when you are driving, don't you pay more attention to your speed when the police are out in force handing out tickets?  Second, police, as part of their duties enforcing the law, investigate crimes, arrest perpetrators, and present cases to the prosecutor.  This helps make us all safer, though no one individual may lay claim to the services of the police.

At the same time, I need to point out that the police are drawn from the overall community, and of necessity can not be viewed as being special.  They are not more honest, nor better behaved, or in any way any "better" than the average.  Their training is in law enforcement.  Unlike TV cops, they may never have to fire their guns in defense of their lives, or the life of a citizen.

David Codrea, at the blog The War On Guns has a regular feature called "The Only Ones" that depicts police officers often committing crimes themselves. It is not to make police look bad, but rather to make the point that the police, like every other member of society, need to be policed. They are not avenging angels, but mere mortals who stray like everyone else.  They do not deserve to be the only ones who are allowed to carry arms.  In fact, we citizens would be fools to allow our servants to carry arms when we were not allowed to, or to possess arms which are denied to citizens.    

Now, back for a moment to the defund the police movement.  Are there crimes which should be decriminalized?  Well...yeah...of course.  I have argued for years that gun free zones, for example, should not exist.  While private property owners can make that determination for their properties, foolish though that is, I do not believe that government can make that determination, nor should they.  And I believe the entire National Firearms Act should have been struck down years ago by the Supreme Court.  That goes for the GCA68 as well.  And while we're at it, the ATF should be severely reigned in.  In terms of drugs, perhaps we might look to Switzerland as a model, since what we are doing isn't working, and there are so many behind bars because of drugs.

Good for David Hardy for making the point, again, that the police are not there to protect individuals.  Whenever the left points to the existence of police for why we needn't carry guns, we need to remind them that the purpose of police is to protect the community at large, not each individual.

5 Commercial Loads for the .45 Auto, If You Can Find One

Bob Campbell reviews 5 loads for the .45 Auto cartridge at the Shooter's Log entitled 5 (More) .45 ACP Loads To Consider. These include the Sig Saur 230 gr. FMJ, the Speer Gold Dot 230 gr. JHP, Winchester 185 gr. Silver Tip, the Fiocchi 200 gr. XTP and the Hornady 185 gr. Critical Defense. I have shot the Winchester Silver Tip in .38 Super Auto, where it feeds extraordinarily well in my .38 Super Auto pistol. I carry the Hornady Critical Defense in my every day carry.

I can attest to the Hornady Critical Defense load.  I bought mine before the Wuhan Flu hit.  Good luck finding any of these loads now, though.  It is catch as catch can, what with everyone buying everything gun related in sight.  I was looking for a turret press to supplement my single stage press and found that these were out of stock.  As I say, people are buying everything gun related in sight.

Speaking of the new people who are buying up everything in sight, over at  Bearing Arms Tom Knighton has an article explaining that New Gun Buyers Are Not Who You Think
Indeed, Knighton notes that a lot of them are women and minorities. That may change the Democrats' strategy to get rid of guns.

Further, the overall point about just who is buying those guns stands. The truth is that new gun owners come from across the socio-economic spectrum and may have lasting ramifications on the gun debate for decades to come. As black Americans are preached to about the evils of police and how everyone wants them dead, it’s no surprise that more than a few are out there buying firearms. They should, especially if they fear being targeted for a hate crime or something of the sort.

The truth is, guns are no longer all about middle age white dudes with pickup trucks and a wad of tobacco in their mouth. They never actually were, mind you, but that’s what people had in mind when you talked about gun owners.

It’s well past time to drop that stereotype and recognize that guns cross all such boundaries.

I have made the point before that the ownership of guns, and the practice and training with them should not be a right-left issue. It should not be a racial issue, or indeed any identity issue. Guns should be a people issue. Everyone who is not a felon, should have a gun, and should carry it everywhere. There should be no gun free zones, with the possible exception of prisons and court houses.

Well, I can dream, right?

Massive Cyber Attack Against U. S. - Lou Dobbs

 From the American Partisan by NC Scout this from Lou Dobbs Lob Dobbs presents infromation about a massive cyber attack against the U. S. He has General Michael Flynn to talk about it as well.

Update:  At the American Thinker today, a post by Jack Hellner questions The man who said the election was the most secure ever didn't know about a massive government hack by foreign actors? Of course, Hellner is talking about Christopher Krebs who ran the agency that should have been overseeing our government systems.

Let me get this straight:

The media and other Democrats absolutely believe the now fired Christopher Krebs, who had been the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, when he said the U.S. election was the most secure ever.

Yet, somehow, Russia or someone was hacking computers at many government agencies, under Krebs's watchful eyes, for months, and yet he either didn't know or did nothing to stop it.

It doesn't appear that Mr. Krebs or his agency did an analysis of the Dominion Voting Systems machines to find out whether they had capacity to flip votes, so why does anyone believe him when he says the election was the most secure ever?

Does anyone believe that the Russians or other hackers have the ability to break into computers throughout government, but didn't want to do it on voting machines?

There's every reason to believe that either Russia, or China, or both have interfered in the election. This should trigger EO 13848.

The Last Best Hope?

I have been watching the slow motion defeat of President Trump since November 4th of this year.  I have to say that the Supreme Court's dismissal, without a hearing, of the Texas case was a gut punch.  The Electoral College vote was a sad day in America.  Then yesterday, Mitch McConnell claimed that with the Electoral Collège vote, the people had spoken.  It appears that everyone in government is willing to endorse gross, in-you-face election fraud on a massive, industrial scale.  Can any American believe that their vote counted?  Can anyone believe that their vote will count in the future?  And what was all that hogwash with the Supremes making a rule that one person has one vote.  Apparently Democrats have however many votes they need to defeat you and me.

Andrea Widburg has a post today that points out that   Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business Channel claims to have an intelligence source that claims that in fact President Trump did indeed win the election.  After recapitulating what we already know:

Maria Bartiromo: "An intel source told me President Trump did, in fact, win the election. He says that it is up to the Supreme Court to hear suits from other cases across the country to stop the clock. This follows the high court's refusal to hear the lawsuit from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton."

Naturally, the source Ms. Bartiromo cites is not revealed, so caveat emptor applies. After all, can anyone trust an "intelligence source" when they lie for a living?

Meanwhile, George Witowski holds out hope in a post at the American Thinker entitled The "Tell" Heard Round the World. Witowski expresses what we are all feeling:

How can this be? For any of us who have studied this day and night — we see the mountains of evidence of electoral fraud. Just this week, in Michigan, we got concrete evidence of fraud on the Dominion machines in Antrim County. All of us want to see investigations of Dominion voting machines not just in the rest of the state of Michigan, but in every county in America that used Dominion machines.

It just feels too late.

Yes, it does. 

It is as if the government is determined to run out the clock. And if Democrats can do it, could not Republicans? But all that doesn't seem to matter. They'll cross that bridge when they come to it, apparently. Then, Mr. Witowski brings up what he thinks is a "tell" of events about to happen:

So — it hit me on the appropriately ominous and gray day of last Saturday's Army-Navy game that there was a simple, unmistakable "tell." A decorated chaplain marched out with Trump and a couple other officers at the game's opening ceremony. With Trump a few feet away, the chaplain began to pray. We saw close-ups of the faces of the young cadets in the crowd as he spoke. Around forty seconds in, the good chaplain prayed, "Here on this field, two teams will strive with all their might to win. But soon, in the days ahead, we may ask them to deploy to the field of battle. And on that day they will serve as one team and strive with all their might to win in defense of our nation."

Seeing those fine cadets and knowing many tough vets, I can tell you that there is still the fire and the will to defend our liberty. We just do not see it in hardly any of our political class because of the deliberate and successful attempt by outsiders to weaken and compromise our most vital institution.

Witowski cites the Presidents EO13848. However, the report that the Executive Order triggers has already been delayed. I suspect this too will prove to be a false hope. The Democrats will be allowed to commit crimes with impunity, while punishing those who support their opponents. Lincoln's Last Great Hope of Mankind appears to be down for the count. Perhaps in several centuries it will arise somewhere else. I continue to pray for our Republics, though.

Update:  The Epoch Times has an article this afternoon claiming that The DNI stated that there was foreign interference in the election. As before, though, remember that these people play games so...

Who Is Stealing America

 Watch this special report by the Epoch Times. Its a bit long, so watch it when you have a spare 1 hour 33 minutes.

Let us not call them "vigilantes"

 Mike Adams at the  Natural News has an article entitled The betrayal is now complete: SCOTUS dismissal of Texas lawsuit illuminates final remaining option to save the republic.

Adams writes:

The court did not hear the merits of the case, nor did it decide on them. It simply declared that Democrat-controlled states can rig elections, commit ballot fraud, cheat and steal in whatever way they want even if their actions are wildly unfair to the other states which are impacted by the outcome of federal elections.

As of tonight, December 11, 2020, we no longer live in a functioning constitutional republic.

There is no longer any controlling legal authority that is functioning in America.

Even the death of Ginsburg, it seems, was not enough to lend the court a majority of jurists who might choose to uphold the rule of law.

At the moment, the Electoral College is voting. But I don't expect any surprises there. I also do not expect any surprises to come from Congress itself. Therefore, Adams is correct that the last remaining option to save the republic may be EO 13848, if Trump decides to exercise that option. And he is also correct that the Constitution is essentially a dead letter. If the Supreme Court is not concerned about violations of the Constitution, of which there manifestly were, and both wide spread and gross, then what are they there to do?

What does this have to do with our other rights?  Of course, I have known for some time that each of us is the ultimate defender and guarantor of our own rights.  Until recently, however, we have relied on the idea, and it was only an idea, that our Constitution defended our rights.  Police forces, and the courts would provide an imperfect form of justice.  Now, we may find out what it means to defend our rights since under a Biden/Harris administration, we may well be living in lawless times.  We will find out what it means when our right to speak, to attend worship, or to keep and bear arms are denied that we must insist on those rights anyway.  Let us not call those who must defend themselves "vigilantes."  

We do not want to live in a world governed by tyrants

Jack Phillips at the Epoch Times reports on an interview with General Michael Flynn entitled US in Middle of a 'Battle of Good vs. Evil, Michael Flynn

“The battle we are engaged in cannot be fought with only human weapons: It requires the intervention of God because in a war against the forces of evil, only the Lord can obtain the victory,” Flynn wrote in an op-ed published on Dec. 10.

“And as American citizens, we must refuse to go to the funeral of our own independence,” he added. “We the people are proud to proclaim that the United States of America is ‘One Nation under God.’”

...snip...

“We do not want a world governed by tyrants whom no one has elected and who want to have power in order to destroy us,” Flynn wrote in his article. “We understand what their plan is: to eliminate dissent, subdue any criticism and outlaw those who do not submit unconditionally to the dictatorship of the ‘new world order.’”

Quite so. 

We May Yet See Justice Done

 I had known about Trumps executive order, 13848, but I didn't know all of the details.  At the American Partisan today, JohnyMac asks Will Trump Pull the Pin on EO 13848? If Trump does pull the pin, it could put a lot of people in jeopardy. It would only be what these traitors deserve, but the question remains, will he do it?

Of course go read the article. 

Personally, I vote for Sociopath

 Since it appears that a pretender to the Presidency will go through a ceremony resembling an inauguration, we can expect that there will be a nationwide mask mandate.  Heaven knows that masks do nothing to stop the Chinese virus, and even social distancing isn't all that helpful.  But then, that isn't the reason why it is being foisted on us.  Andrew Pollack over at Breitbart News has an article entitled Lockdown Hypocrits - Or Sociopaths

It would be easier to believe that the lockdowns and mask mandates that Joe Biden and his allies are pushing are truly good-faith public health measures if the politicians pushing them weren’t such self-righteous hypocrites.

...snip...

Hypocrisy, of course, is nothing new from politicians. But what’s going on here is much different – and much more troubling. Politicians – predominantly Democrat ones – are restricting our freedoms and destroying American businesses because, they insist, moving around freely will kill people. Then they move around freer than ever before.

Are these politicians sociopaths who think that they’re entitled to kill people? Does someone like Gavin Newsom think that it’s fine for Californians to die in order to satisfy his desire for fancy French food? Or does he not really believe that his lockdown measures are helpful, so he’s not really doing anything wrong by violating them?

Personally, I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. I vote for Sociopath as the reason.

Short of a miracle...

 I must say that I am extremely disappointed.  The Texas lawsuit against Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania presented a clear case of a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.  Yet the Supremes decided they were peachy keen fine with the disenfranchisement of some 74 to 80 million of us.  They didn't want to even hear the case.  While I had little faith that the Surpremes would deliver relief for legal voters, who voted for Trump, and send the message that cheating and fraud would not be rewarded in our elections, the fact remains they should have done the right thing.  But apparently 7 of the Justices chose NOT to do the right thing, including the 3 Justices who owe their positions to President Trump.  Still they took an oath to defend the Constitution, not the President, and they have abrogated that their oath. When the socialist come for our guns, which they have promised to do, we now know where we stand.  We can not count on the Supremes.

I can not imagine what Trump must be feeling. At the American Thinker C. Edmund Write has a post that expresses what I am feeling at the moment entitled After SCOTUS knife in the back, what Trump must do now.. According to Wright:

Our feckless Supreme Court has chosen guaranteed cocktail party invitations with the beautiful people in the swamp over the Constitutional Republic — and favored phony pieces of mailed ballots and theoretical Dominion algorithms over flesh-and-blood voters.

As it stands, President Donald Trump faces what may be the most distasteful test of patriotism any president has ever faced. And it may be among the most important ever as well. To be fair, this is not the horrible choice of instantly killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatant citizens — including kids — the kind of decisions surrounding the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in World War 2. Clearly not. But on a personal gut level, it must be an even more bitter choice. And again, in this, we need him more than he needs us — or anyone, or anything.

As I said, I can not imagine what the President must be feeling, but one suspects he is feeling the horrible sting of having been betrayed, of having that knife dig deep into his heart. While it is still possible for the State legislatures of Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to do the right thing, I have even less faith that they will do so. While the Supremes are supposedly "independent," these politicians are...well...politicians. They naturally have other considerations than simply the law. They seem to only do the right thing by shear accident. 

Then there is Congress itself, which can...CAN chose not to seat these electors if the legislatures do not do the right thing. But a lot of Republicans hate the President, so they are not likely to do the right thing. The Republicans have another problem: they think they will get another chance, that there will be other elections. What they don't understand is if this election is stolen, the Republicans will never be in power again, at least in any meaningful way. This nation will forever be effectively a one party state. The Democrats will be able to do anything they desire. There will be no one to slow them down let alone stop them.  The entire country will be like California, or worse.

Meanwhile, Andrea Widburg notes that Sidney Powell is Still Out there Fighting I applaud the work Sidney Powell is doing.  But here's the problem: In order to have any effect, these crimes need to be prosecuted and people need to publicly go to jail. Indeed, some high level people in the crime organization known as the Democrat party need to go to jail for a long stretch.  That requires the Justice Department to do its job, which it has been reluctant to do. While Powell may be able to bring the evidence she is collecting to a court, and a court may deign to hear it, if Trump is not President, the crimes she highlights will never be prosecuted.

Short of a miracle, I think it is all over. The United States of America is history. In its place will rise the Socialist States of America. The SSA. We can start by naming Navy ships SSS.

Update:  Yesterday, Dean Weingarten at  at Ammoland in a post entitled Terror, Supreme Court Justices, and the Existencial Threat opined that the Supremes would not knuckle under to threats. Of course, one can not know what is in another's mind, but it appears that Weingarten was wrong. As I sai, at this point, short of a miracle, our Republic is lost. May God have mercy on us, for the socialists will surely not.

You can not reason a person out of a position into which he did not reason himself

Selwyn Duke has an article today to explain to us conservatives that The Time for Talking with the Left is Long, Long Past. Mr. Duke is, sadly, absolutely correct. We conservatives tend to respond to logical arguments, whereas the Left is animated by emotions and feelings. This fact makes them vulnerable to cognitive dissonance, the holding of two opposite beliefs at the same time. 

Cognitive dissonance is explained because each issue triggers outrage, without reference to the other issue. For example, Leftists are outraged over attempts to save the unborn because they "feel" that a woman should have control over her own body. (Interestingly, they did indeed have control over their own body, but chose to have sex with the person who impregnated them.)  So, they are all in favor of killing innocent unborn children until just after birth. Yet these same people are also against the execution of murderers, even when the perpetrator of such an act is not in dispute. These two beliefs therefore make them in favor of executing the innocent but not the guilty. Clearly this does not pass the test of logic, but this is not a problem for Leftists.

Duke writes:

“People who cannot be reasoned with can only be fought.” It’s an age-old truth, one good people ignore at their own peril. It too often is ignored, though, since good people are mostly reasonable and, in accordance with man’s nature, engage in projection. They thus assume that others are as reasonable as they are.

So, then, why bother writing columns? Why bother providing well reasoned arguments, if those arguments fall on deaf ears? But Duke makes the point that he is not writing arguments to convince the Left. The Left can not be convinced, can not be reasoned with. Instead, he is writing to preach literally to the choir, to buck up the often weak kneed with ammunition, and to convince those in the middle who may be open to our side. That is what Rush Limbaugh has been doing for 30 years as well. In validating conservatives' thoughts, he reminds us that we are, if not the majority on every issue, a significant minority on all of them. More importantly, we learn that we are not alone, that in fact a lot of us thing the same way.

But, what does all this mean. How to we conservatives treat Leftists, their ideas, and in some cases their "laws?"

So how should we regard vanguard leftists, the Machiavellian destroyers of civilizations? How can you be prepared for them? Well, pretend you’re dealing with Satan.

You can view this purely as a thought exercise if you’re non-religious. But know that the enemy — and that is what leftists are — is above nothing and beneath contempt. They will say anything and do anything to achieve their ends, which they believe justify the means; no lie is too great, no theft too grand, no contradiction too bold, no sacrifice of life too unpalatable. Moral relativists/nihilists to the core, they have boiled their behavioral guide down to: “If it feels good, do it.”

Conservatives must accept this hard reality and avoid the aforementioned instinctive, very human but in this case deadly habit: projection. This is when you ascribe your own mindset, priorities and sense of virtue to others. But vanguard leftists aren’t like you. As with the Devil, they can’t be talked out of their passions or reasoned out of their malevolence. They are as aliens — and they do not come in peace.

...snip...

In a saner world, people could talk things out, seeking that ethereal common ground called Truth. But morally nihilistic leftists scoff at absolutes and have thus turned themselves into glorified animals, driven by their base instincts and consuming freedom, virtue and goodness like demonic locusts. They won’t stop until they are stopped, and if people cannot talk things out, they are left to fight them out. And our leftists are ensuring that we cannot talk things out.

The reality is that if the United States were a marriage, there would have been a divorce long ago. Leftists are as alien to more traditional people as a race of aggressive, invasive extraterrestrials, and they’ve made coexistence impossible.

Please go read the whole article. Start thinking about how you might resist, what things you can do where you are now. Pray on it, for sure, but understand that it ultimately is in His hands. We must all be on His side in this. Understand that God does indeed love each of his creations, including the Devil. He loves them so much that he is willing to let them go if that is what they desire. The Left has shown that they do not want to be with God. Therefore it is up to us to resist and to harden our hearts against everything the Left stands for. Sound harsh? Go read your Bible. God doesn't punish people, but he does let them suffer the consequences of their actions.

Turns Out the Death Rate Is No Higher. What Gives? We have the answer.

 There is much in the news, and much that is uniformly bad to alarming.  Sidney Powell was rebuffed by a Federal District Court in Michigan because, as the Court noted, she was too late in bringing her suit.  Should've got there sooner, but of course, then it would have been that there wasn't enough evidence.   Since she now has the evidence, its because she got there too late.  Oh, and the Court didn't want to "disenfranchise" any of the illegal votes...no, no.  She would rather disenfranchise the 74 million legal ones.

 Such rulings are discouraging, and it is easy to become cynical.  It is hard to remain a happy warrior.  But as St. Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 18-23:

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” 21Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours. 23And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

So, I remain a happy warrior knowing that this is all in God's hands, and I try to stay on God's side in all this. All is proceeding according to His plan, whatever that may be.

So, instead of the other bad news, let me tackle the Covid-19 bad news.  It seems that a program director for a masters degree program at Johns Hopkins University did the unthinkable, and debunked the entire pandemic panic porn at its base (gasp) with official statistics, no less. Philip Mella at the American Thinker has the story in a post entitled The Science and Politics of Covid-19. I urger gentle readers to go read the whole article.

One of the most important lessons of the past nine months is that epidemiological models are predicated on assumptions and that statistical data can be manipulated to conform to a variety of desired outcomes. They are therefore an alluring target for political exploitation.

It was therefore noteworthy when a November 22 study published by Johns Hopkins University was subsequently deleted by the university because an official stated that it "was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic."

The study, titled "A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19," was conducted by Dr. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the applied economics master's degree program at the university. Her analysis made the astonishing conclusion that "in contrast to most people's assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States."

The emphasis is mine. I have noted in the past that the general response of those certifying deaths has been that if a person died with the Wuhan virus, the cuase of death was put down to the virus whatever the actual cause. Thus, someone with the Covid who died of being shot in the head might plausibly be listed as a Covid death. (For the Leftists among you, I am joking.)

But all joking aside, the misuse of the virus as a cause of death has been used to ramp up the totalitarian efforts to take away peoples businesses and their rights. The worship of our God has been severely hampered. Low information types, as well as mask fanatics and busybodies have bullied the people into wearing masks even outside, or when driving in the cars alone. Such people believe a piece of cloth over the face somehow provides protection from the virus similar to the cross supposedly protecting against vampires.  They are correct in neither case.

The proof of the above statement lies here:

Dr. Briand compiled a graph from data on the CDC website representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.

Remarkably, the deaths of older people were unchanged prior to and after the advent of COVID-19. Because COVID-19 primarily impacts the elderly, experts anticipated an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. But the CDC data didn't support this presumption. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

As Dr. Briand noted, "[t]he reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals." She subsequently determined that the range of deaths among the older population was within the range of past years.

I not only urge you to read the article, but as well to read the linked study. Then, take action as you may. If these tyrants don't recieve push back, they will just keep turning the screws. Of course, be civil in your protests. Remember, though, that if even words are violence, they have been the first to weaponize words.

Picking A Side

 Over at the American Thinker today, Michael V. Wilson has an article explaining What Leftists Don't Get About Evil and the Law Wilson explains that in the law, there are two types of "wrong": Malum in Se" being wrong on its face, and "Malum Prohibitum," or wrong because we say so. Of the two, malum in se is the more powerful. Robbery, murder, lying, or bearing false witness are examples of malum in se. Malum in se laws are easily accepted by almost everyone because at heart, they are moral. Malum prohibitum laws can be useful, but many are tempted to disobey them at times because there is nothing immoral about doing so. So, for example, at three in the morning on a country back road, do you stop at the stop sign, or look both ways, and seeing nothing, slide on through?  Most gun control laws are malum prohibitum because there is nothing intrinsically immoral about a weapon.  It is only immoral if used for evil.  The same weapon, when used to defend yourself or others would be good.

Of course, all the malum in se laws are already on the books.  Malum prohibitum laws, though, are only limited by the imagination.  And unfortunately, the Left, which craves control, has a great imagination, and a huge number of grievances, most of them imaginary.

Having outline the law, the reason for this article comes into view.  Governors, mayors, and pretty much every Leftist and Leftist wannabe has put undue restrictions on Christian and Jewish services.  Leftists find Churches particularly annoying because their existence points to the fact that there is a higher power than the State.

Churches have been meeting together for prayer and fellowship since before Pentecost. During the early days, when the Roman Empire declared Christianity an outlaw religion, Christians were forced to meet secretly in caves and basements to avoid arrest, imprisonment, and death by torture, crucifixion, or lions.

Today, we're seeing a return to that same mentality among the secular left. Governors and mayors around the country have used the excuse of the Wuhan virus to crack down on religious services, particularly of the Jewish and Christian variety (I dare say they're being somewhat more circumspect in their dealings with Muslim gatherings.)

Churches met regularly for services during the Black Plague in Europe (1346–1353) and every other pandemic or disease outbreak before and since. Individuals were understood to have the capacity to make their own rational decisions about what was best for them and their families without being forced to obey a one-size-fits-none government mandate.

I have noted before that the current pandemic is not the Black Plague. The Black Death was 1500 times worse than this, and yet churches met regularly.

Wilson has a dire warning for Christians and Jews if Biden wins the Electoral College:

The left believes that whatever is passed into law is moral because it's the law. The intrinsic differences between malum in se and malum prohibitum will be ignored as leftists outlaw anything they don't like and mandate whatever they approve. With the power of government at their disposal, the left will harass, cancel, fine, arrest, imprison, and eventually execute anyone who disobeys their evil laws. No excuses will be allowed, and forgiveness won't be an option.

The specifics of the left's plans are irrelevant, because all its efforts will lead to the same dismal result: America as we know it will never be the same. It might survive as a single country or become balkanized along regional lines or state lines.

Maybe Trump will pull a rabbit out of his hat. But that only postpones the inevitable. Sooner or later, you will have to pick a side. Either you will be on God's side, or you will not.

Until We Have Faces Part 2

 Today, at the American Thinker Fay Voshell has an excellent article entitled Dehumanizing Americans that fits in with my previous post, Until We Have Faces. But, it is even more powerful. She makes the point that as Christians, we must resist the current Covidianism, the lockdowns, the mask mandates, and the attempt to silence us, as well as the attempt to keep us from worshiping the Creator of the everything that is, and everything that is not.  Without revealing the entire article, allow me to quote from the end of the essay:

How can we counter the trend that dehumanizes the peoples of the world?

For Christians as well as for devout Jews, the answer is found in the concept of human beings as created in the image of God, the Creator of all that is. Every individual life bears the imago dei and is invaluable in the sight of God. So we regard our fellow human being as like ourselves, as the Great Commandment transcending any laws of a Great Reset states. Life has intrinsic meaning because of Who authors, preserves and redeems humans.

In that Great Commandment lies the rationale for resistance to a tyrannous and dehumanizing Great Reset that would be essentially mass conversion through force.

Those with eyes to see and ears to hear take note.

Until We Have Faces

 Stella Morabito points out that masks are another way to impse social control at The Federalist. Morabito goes through the history of the mask mandates, pointing out that we were instructed first NOT to wear masks, before we were instructed that we MUST wear masks. She also makes it clear that the skepticism about masks arises from the nonsensical situations in which masks are mandated.

There are, of course, several obvious reasons to object to mask mandates. First, those who push for them have made it very easy to be skeptical of their claims that any old mask is essential for public safety. A mask alone in the car? On the beach in the sun and salt air? On the walk into a restaurant but not after you’re seated?

But the real point of Morabito's essay is that masks dehumanize us and therefore isolate us from the rest of humanity. We are meant to see each other, to develop and nurture relationships. Sure, it is possible to have strictly transactional relationships at a distance, but for truly long term friendships, and even love, we must be close, and must see each other's face. She notes too that in court cases, the witnesses must have their faces uncovered or juries can not tell if they are telling the truth. And children need to learn the art of reading faces, so should not be masked.

Central to Morabito's analogy is a book by C. S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces.  In summarizing the novel, she notes that the main character, Orual, wears a veil precisely so no one can see her face, which she believes gives her power over others. But:

At her moment of epiphany, Orual realizes she spent her life hiding from the truth, often in the most specious of ways. Once she accepts the truth, Orual understands that her life, spent in pursuit of the total control symbolized by her face-covering, didn’t serve her well.

It doesn't serve us well either. It is only by facing the world barefaced that we can nuture our friendships and our loves.

Walter E. Williams, R.I.P.

 Yesterday, while working, I got news that Walter E. Williams had passed.  He was a professor of economics at George Mason University, and a bold commentator on Townhall.com Thomas Sowell, another commentator at Townhall.com has the obituary. May Dr. Williams rest in peace.

The Constitution Has No "Pandemic Emergency" Exception

In a piece today at the  American Thinker, Jeffrey Folks explains Why It Matters When New York's Governor Spits on SCOTUS Defense of Religious Freedom. Spoiler alert: It matters that religions liberty is the first of the things listed in the First Amendment with which government is forbidden from interfering.

During the COVID-19 epidemic, Gov. Cuomo of New York and other governors have tried to shut down or limit attendance at America's churches. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Cuomo's COVID response, which limited church attendance to as few as ten or lower, violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion. It may be that the ruling has broad applicability to religious services throughout New York, as well as to those in California and all other states.

...snip...

Religious liberty is at the heart of our national identity. For a top liberal opinion-maker to say defending it is just "politics" is horrifying.

Note that this lawsuit was brought by the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, a large and substantial group in New York, not by, say, the Jewish community. But the Jewish community, the Sikhs, the Muslims, indeed every religious group may benefit from this ruling. On the other hand, one must wonder what the Governor was thinking. After all, those who are most vulnerable surely know it by now. Shouldn't they isolate themselves? Those who are less vulnerable should be able to determine their own risks, shouldn't they? Do we really need a tyrant to tell us what risks we are allowed to take, while forcing us to take other risks that we may not want to take?

Understanding that Cumomo is a Leftist (not, as Folks says in the article, a liberal) helps to understand his attitude:

Only by understanding the nature of liberal bias can one begin to understand liberals' actions and goals. When liberals speak of "separation of church and state" — the false basis of their thinking about religious liberty — what they actually mean is the suppression of churches. Liberals have been conducting a war against Christianity for over 200 years — certainly since Voltaire's Candide (1759) and the time of rationalists like William Godwin and Jeremy Bentham — and their goal is not a polite "separation" of religion from schools and courthouses. It is the elimination of religious expression everywhere.

This goal is particularly obvious as we enter Advent and approach the celebration of Christ's birth. It is not surprising during one of the holiest times of the year that liberals should be especially active in their attempts at suppression. It's not just the prohibition of religious symbols at public schools, as troubling as these prohibitions are. It's the attempt to suppress all idealism and faith in life and to replace them with cynicism and rationalism. That materialist ethos is, after all, the liberal alternative to religious faith.

One of the keys to understanding the liberal mind is to recognize that liberals, often atheists but also those attending universalist churches, assume that other faiths are inferior to their own. No true religion can worship the State in the way that liberals do. What liberals offer is a false faith that competes with Christianity and other true religions.

The liberal mind seeks finality because it cannot deal with the vexing uncertainty of life itself. Better to be equal regardless of merit than for some to stand out; better for the State to rule supreme than for individuals to have to compete in a messy capitalist marketplace. Most importantly, better to settle things — to get over the agonizing insecurity of living even if it means living within a gray, hopeless world.

Please go read the entire article. If the Constitution is to truly protect our rights, and serve as a framework for the working out of difference by means other than warfare, then its provisions must operate in all circumstances. There can not be a "pandemic exception" to the Constitution. Otherwise, government officials would find an excuse to declare an emergency all the time. The realization that this was true was why the North Carolina legislature took away the Governor's ability to declare a weather emergency that took away our right to carry a weapon in public. But the Constitution doesn't recognize a weather emergency either.