Whether We Like It Or Not, We Are In A War In Which the Left Is The Aggressor

The theme of today's post to this blog is that the facist/communsist far left is a culture of violence and death. It is supported by facts taken from history and from our present situation here in America. The first article today comes from Townhall.com by far East commentator Mark Lewis entitled The Left's Culture of Death III: Who Are the Enemy?, in which he points out that the enemy is anyone the dictator decides is not sufficiently in line with the dictator's thinking. If someone is free thinking enough to express mild disagreement, killing him and others like him sends the message to the rest that they better not say anything to question dear leader.

The Left must have an enemy, somebody to fight, some entity to excoriate, some group that they must convince the masses are trying to destroy their lives, a group that must be obliterated in order to save the “revolution,” the country, the world. In America, enemy number one is Donald Trump, the most hated man on the planet. But, in communist China, in the years after “liberation” (1950-52), who were Mao Zedong’s enemies? Who had to be annihilated? Well, pretty much anybody who didn’t agree with him or that he didn’t like:

“‘Our general policy, Mao [said], ‘is to eliminate the remnant Nationalist forces, the secret agents and the bandits, overthrow the landlord class, liberate Taiwan and Tibet and fight imperialism to the end.’” (Frank Dikötter, The Tragedy of Liberation, Chapter 5, “The Great Terror”; All subsequent quotes are from the same source.)

...snip...

Besides Nationalists, Mao’s enemies were anybody he didn’t like, anybody who might oppose him as a dictator, and any piece of land that didn’t belong to him that he wanted.

How to gain these victories? By debate, persuasion, and reason? No. By propaganda, lies, and force. It is the only way Leftists can ever gain control of the masses because most people want absolutely nothing to do with their horrid policies. So, terror and mass murder became the—literal—order of the day:

“Mao handed down a killing quota as a rough guide for action. The norm, he felt, was one per thousand, a ratio he was willing to adjust to the particular circumstances of each region. His subordinates kept track of local killing rates like bean counters, occasionally negotiating for a higher quota. In May 1951 Guangxi province, for instance, was told to kill more, even though a rate of 1.63 per thousand had already been achieved.

A quota. “Kill this many, innocent or not.” And as we saw in earlier columns, innocence or guilt—or age—didn’t matter to his subordinates. They had to kill or be killed:

“Villages, counties, and provinces emulated each other, preferring to kill too many rather than too few – and risk being purged as ‘rightists’... Thousands were silently executed in order to fulfill and surpass the quota.”

Note that while Communist China is here the example, the same thing happened in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Cambodia, Nazi Germany (yes, the Nazis were socialists just like the Communists) and anywhere else that the Left has taken power. If we allow it, the same is in store for these united States. Believe that the fascist far Left is already drawing up lists of who to throw against the wall when the revolution comes. Gentle readers are urged to read Lewis's article, and of course, if you have the time, read parts I and II as well. It will show you the horrors of living under a socialist system. The first thing they do is change the meaning of words and lie, such that they  promise a Utopia, but deliver death and destruction. The WEF promises you will own nothing (true) and you will like it (grossly false. You will eat bugs, and live lives of serfdom to the state. When they are through with you they will kill you. Maybe they will kill you just for complaining.)

This leads us to the other post today, by Jeffrey Folks at the American Thinker entitled Nazis On The Left? I am not sure why the question mark. The fact that the Fascists are one step away from the Communists has been thoroughly documented. Communists are international socialists, whereas Fascists are National socialists. But the modus operandi is still the same.  There is no gentler form of the Left.

Riley Gaines is a former NCAA female swimmer who has spoken out against the so-called right of males to compete as females. In response, she has been attacked, verbally and physically, by transgender activists and their supporters. Recently, after speaking at San Francisco State University, she was forced to barricade herself in a room while she was assaulted by a mob of transgender rights protesters. According to Gaines, police in San Francisco "failed miserably" to defend her and stated, according to Gaines, that "it was not ideal for them to be seen as anything other than an ally to this community."

Gaines was attacked simply for describing the injustice of having to compete against a male swimmer and to share a locker room with a male. Those are commonsense statements that most Americans agree with: 20 states now block males from competing against females in sports, and in recent polling, only 30% of Americans supported the "right" of transgenders to compete in women's sports at the high school and college levels.

The Riley Gaines protest is just the latest example of the left's resorting to violence in place of peaceful discussion. Violent attacks on conservatives and on anyone who stands in their way have become commonplace, and these attacks are a grave danger to our democracy.

...snip...

For many years, blacks, gays, transgenders, and other identity groups have protested, for the most part peacefully, but now their protests have become something else. Leftists always believed they were right and others wrong, but now they seem to think others must be silenced. This is just one step away from the final stage, which is the belief that others have no right to live.

Riley Gaines was not by any means the only victim of violent left-wing protest. An anti-Israel protest in January 2022 at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor was equally disturbing. That protest was a blatant, insensitive call for "Intifada" and, indeed, genocide, stressing as it did the purported "solution" to the "evil" of Israel, as many on the left now see it. The use of the word "solution" by protesters was chilling since it echoed Hitler's "final solution": the extermination of Jews and others including Slavs, gypsies, and the disabled.

And the use of that term "solution" raises the question of how far the left is willing to go. Is it just Jews living in Israel or those who question transgender "rights" or those who wish to end affirmative action or all those who voted for or supported Trump? Does it also include those who support the police, those who defend the Second Amendment, and all who practice Christianity? Every communist takeover, whether in Russia, China, Cuba, or Cambodia, has carried out deadly reprisals against ideological opponents. Recent events in the U.S. are in line with this history.

I have actually personally heard people on the Left talking this way. They wouldn't personally have killed anyone, but they also wouldn't have objected to the state murdering people they disagreed with. For one thing, they are universally atheist, so do not believe that we were created in the image of God. Indeed, they look at Christians and Jews as being stupid for believing what the Bible says. And if they don't believe in a Creator, they certainly don't believe that said Creator granted any rights. And therefore they believe that whatever rights an individual may have are granted by the state, and can be recinded at any time. Thus their disdain for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The chant of Pride Parades, that "we are coming for your children" should actually be that "we are coming for YOU and your children. Whether we like it or not, we are in a war in which the Left is the aggressor. Sooner or later, we will have to engage.

The Foolishness of Buying Our Military Uniforms From China

 A theme I have been advocating for since...well...since I graduated from college during the Carter administration has been that America should not give up its industrial base as the globalists desired.  Companies need to make a reasonable profit, but there are goals that matter more than the bottom line.  America won WWII only because it could out build the Axis powers.  On this I have felt like a lone voice shouting against a hurricane.  Thus, it was good to read at The Federalist a piece by Nathaniel Blake entitled The Decline Of American Manufacturing Inevitably Means An Empty Wartime Arsenal. When I was with the Navy, I pondered the idea that the Army had to buy its uniforms from China. We couldn't even make our own uniforms! But it seems that the war in Ukraine has spotlighted the fact that we can not keep up with Russia in terms of artillery shells. Russia!

It is hard to be the arsenal of democracy if you can’t make anything anymore. The war in Ukraine has deranged many people — Michael Rubin, a lunatic and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wants to give Ukraine nukes — but it may also teach us some hard but necessary lessons. For instance, as the tides of war turn against Ukraine, it seems that globalist economics is defeating globalist foreign policy interventionism.

...snip...

The war has become one of attrition, and regardless of our sympathies, this favors Russia. Foreign policy realist John Mearsheimer recently observed, “The Russians have had the upper hand this year, mainly because they have a substantial advantage in artillery, which is the most important weapon in attrition warfare.” For all of the billions in aid the West has sent to the Ukrainians, they are still short of munitions; they don’t need F-16s and precision weapons nearly as much as they need a mountain of old-fashioned shells.

There has been a steady stream of stories warning that Ukraine’s forces are low on munitions and outgunned by their Russian enemies. Russia’s rate of fire is perhaps 10 times that of Ukraine. Worse still, the United States and its allies are depleting their own supplies, as well as struggling to provide weapons to other clients such as Taiwan. Though there is some overlap between the weapons systems that Ukraine and Taiwan each need, the fundamental problem is the limited industrial capacity of the United States.

Trump was right that we need to bring more of our manufacturing home. We need it home because our security demands it. We need to bring it home because we need a techologically advanced workforce to make things and to feed families. We are not at the moment prepared to fight a near peer enemy, and we need to be. We will not have the luxury of time to build up our manufacturing base the next time, so we need to prepare now.

The Wisdom Of Rural Americans and the Founders

 It seems somewhat stupid to ask, but how many people do you think know from whence their food comes?  Traveling through North Carolina farm country, in the Eastern third of the state, I often ask folks what they think is growing in one or another field.  The answers I get is usually "I don't know."

Growing up in a large suburban home, we had a large garden, and tended a variety of crops such as green beans, lima beans, carrots, tomatoes, lettuce, corn, squashes, and strawberries.  So I know what a lot of these crops look like, and I know where they come from, and I know what tries to eat them before we can.  Too many in America today do not understand just how fragile our food supply is.  What does it take to get food from farm or ranch to table?  What would the average urban person do if the farmers and ranchers decided to go Galt?

That is the message behind a piece at the American Thinker today entitled Rural America: Sweet Land of Liberty by Alan Harrelson. There is a reason the WEF wants us to own nothing (whether we like it or not, and we probably won't.) It is that land and property offer those who own it a certain amount of liberty. I remeber visiting my grandparents 200 acre farm in Ohio as a kid, and I remember the feeling of freedom there.

How the Founders envisioned the future of America still matters. Many of the leading Founders believed in a rooted lifestyle based on land ownership and saw the republic as a mosaic of individual families pursuing happiness as moral, capable, and independent-minded citizens. Owning land was once a dream that most Americans sought to achieve, and the driving force behind it was the need to be independent from the control of others. Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and Madison, farmers all, and all currently vilified, would have been appalled at the degree to which Americans have now forsaken the cardinal lesson of rural life: the need to be self-sufficient. From the voices of Big Tech, large corporations, wayward governments, and the modern consumer culture, Americans are told what to think, buy, and believe.

But it wasn't always this way. What happened?

In short, the 20th century happened. Until the early 1900s, the majority of Americans lived relatively quiet lives in the countryside, raising crops and livestock both for their families and for market. Prior to FDR's New Deal, Americans had little to no relationship with the federal government, save the Postal Service. Arguably, FDR did more to erode the independence of individual American families than any president before or since.

The 20th century also witnessed the rise of the modern consumer culture and salesmanship: the idea that one should work to pay for a good or service that he could very well live without. The Southern Agrarians, a group of Southern conservative writers whom most current conservatives have nearly forgotten about, believed that the development of modern salesmanship was dangerous and costly, a threat to self-sufficiency and independence. As the Southern Agrarian writer Andrew Lytle wrote in 1930, a farm is not a place to grow wealthy; it's a place to grow corn.

But the historical reasons why the country is now predominantly urban are not what matters to most readers. What matters is the current cultural and political divide between rural and urban communities. Urban places are the source of this godless woke ideology that now plagues the nation. This is a fact: one is far, far less likely to find rural families who are sympathetic to pride month, government overreach, the attempt to redefine truth, and the attempt to erase American history. You seek patriotism? Don't look for it among the majority of cities. Jefferson was right: cities are to democracy what sores are to the body.

I remember reading a number of the Southern Agrarians, particularly Robert Penn Warren in college. While I don't subscribe to the entire program, they have some important points. We do not need the latest gadgets, and frankly we should spend more of our time thinking about what will and will not serve our interests rather than just buying stuff. But I digress. The point is that when one tends to crops of animals, one is forced to take into account reality. Cows and chickens observe the fact that there are only two sexes. The livestock need to be fed, their diseases need to be attended to, and their quarters need to be cleaned. There is no escape into unreality. In turn, this constant reminder of what is real forces a certain conservativism on rural people. No time for green hair or long finger nails.

From what I can tell, the largest group of Americans who remain committed to the Constitution and a Scalia-style originalist interpretation are those who live in small towns and rural counties. So why is the perspective of these people neglected? Is rural America simply made up of families who are backwards, are unintelligent, and somehow can't keep up with the times? It would be asinine to answer in the affirmative, and yet the mainstream media would have us believe exactly this.

This brings us to Laura Hollis, at Townhall.com in a piece entitled The Founders Were Right. Hollis points to the some ways the Founders' Constitution is valid. The Founders were great students of history, and of human nature. And human nature does not change. We are as we have been since man first walked this earth.

In our politically contentious era, it's popular to claim that the Constitution is outdated, that it was drafted in a bygone era by men whose moral failings (like slave ownership) discredit every other contribution they made to the founding of our country. But each passing day only reinforces the wisdom of the principles the Founders chose as the basis for our nation...

Hollis goes on to list and discuss five things about the Constitution that most people today do not understand. One is that the United States is a Christian nation, but not a theocracy.

The United States was founded on distinctly Judeo-Christian principles. The Declaration of Independence states that among other "self-evident" truths, all men are "endowed by their Creator" with "certain inalienable rights," including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

...snip...

To say that a country is founded upon principles drawn from one or more religious traditions is not the same thing as saying that the country's leaders are gods, or are chosen by God, or that adherence to any given religion is mandated by the state. All these are characteristics of a theocracy, and none of them are among the founding principles of the United States.

Hollis points out that the Constitutional frame work specifies a democratic republic not a democracy I personally get tired of various politicians talking about "our democracy." We don't live in a democracy, and even those who screem the most about losing "our democracy" do not actually want that. They would be appalled if their positions depended on real democracy. In the same vein, ours is not a "majority rules" government. Certain things, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are not up for discussion. The founders had studied democracies in history, and concluded that these always ended up as tyrannies.

Hollis points out that under the Constitution, the states, not the people elect the government. The purpose of the Electoral College is to force candidates to campaign in every state, and to build an overwhelming consensus. Without the Electoral College, candidates could win with the votes of a few large cities, ignoring the vast majority of the country.

Even more frequent than complaints about the composition of the U.S. Senate are the demands that the president of the United States be elected by the so-called popular vote instead of the Electoral College. But, like the U.S. Senate, the Electoral College is set up to temper the political power of states with larger populations.

An important point overlooked by those panting for raw majority rule is that the United States of America is not merely a country; it is also a federation -- a voluntary aggregation of independent states that have ceded only certain limited powers to the federal government. Constitutional structures that give less populated states a legitimate impact in all three branches of the federal government were necessary to bring the nation into existence in the first place. Without a real voice in governance, why become -- or remain -- part of the United States at all?

In many respects, this is the battle that the European Union is fighting now. The citizens of Great Britain voted to leave the European Union ("Brexit") in 2014, tired of being saddled with unpopular policies imposed by Eurocrats they had no voice in choosing. Why give up national sovereignty for that?

Similarly, suppose less populated states find themselves bound by policies that they have little practical opportunity to influence. In that case, it will only be a matter of time before secession begins to look like a serious option.

Hollis's final point is that:

No. 5: Limits on power are features, not bugs.

Those frustrated with the slow way the Congress works and the limits on power believe they alone have the answers. They do not consider that there may be better ways to achieve their goals. I find this a lot with environmentalists who reach for national regulation first, when there are often ways that achieve the same goals appealing to private interests.

The disgruntled among us who push relentlessly for changes that would strengthen the power of raw majorities should know better. One need only look at the cities and states that have been under one-party rule for years -- or decades -- to see the results: increased crime and homelessness, collapsing educational standards, and the departure of residents and businesses. Without the need to consider alternative political voices, parties in the majority rarely depart from their pet policies, even when those policies produce disastrous results.

It would be better if our supposed overlords took a more humble approach to the task of governing.

Note To Zillionaires

 David Codrea has a piece at Ammoland entitled Elites Worried About Violent Rebellion Fear Monster They Helped Create that points to a number of zillionaires who are expressing fear of the "masses." The first thing I have to tell them is to stop calling us "masses." Masses implies that we are all alike, whereas we are each individuals. Other than than, let Codrea tell the story"

“The multi-billionaire owner of luxury jewelry company Cartier has revealed his greatest fear – robots replacing workers and the poor rising up to bring down the rich,” the U.K.’s Independent reports. “Speaking at the Financial Times Business of Luxury Summit in Monaco (obviously), the fashion tycoon told his fellow elite that he can’t sleep at the thought of the social upheaval he thinks is imminent.”

Johann Rupert’s first concern is that “the middle classes won’t want to buy luxury goods for fear of exposing their wealth.” Then he realizes “We are destroying the middle classes at this stage and it will affect us. It’s unfair. So that’s what keeps me awake at night.”

What’s unfair? That the middle class is being destroyed or that it will affect insulated “One-Percenters”?

It’s how it will affect them that should keep him up at night, along with recognizing whose platform calls “the lower middle-class masses … the most dangerous enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” (Gun-owning union member who vote Democrat, take note, and of the term “useful idiot.”)

Codrea points to other billionaires who have expressed concern that they will soon be the targets of "the masses" because of their wealth. I have news for these people. It is not because of their great wealth. While some may have come by it by...let's say not so kosher ways...it is their constant push for gun control that would be the real danger. People who do not trust you can not be trusted. And if the push politicians to confiscate guns in order to protect themselves from what they perceive as the "masses"...well:

And that means all the elites who bet on disarming their “middle class” countrymen and canceling any competitors who didn’t go all out genuflecting to the DEI/Woke complex will need to rely on private security to keep their cowering hides out of the tumbrels and off the scaffolds.

“What makes these billionaires think their security details won’t have families of their own that will be their first concerns, especially the worse things turn out to be?” l asked in another JPFO article about billionaires trying to ride out the Apocalypse they helped bring about on remote ranches, in luxury bunkers, in “sea castles”? “Men may die for a lot of things, for loved ones, for convictions, for country… but for their boss?”

And what’s to stop hired gun mercenaries from deciding the boss has paid for a pretty nice setup, electricity, plenty of food, top-shelf booze, and he’s powerless to prevent them from taking it, and maybe his trophy squeeze, for themselves?

Ironically, the main impediment to any of this happening is what the Founders knew to be “necessary to the security of a free State,” an armed citizenry capable of organizing and repelling “enemies foreign and domestic,” the very people these myopic billionaires in their arrogance and hubris are helping to finance AstroTurf citizen disarmament edicts against. And not coincidentally, these are the “middle classes,” or “bourgeoisie,” working “traditional” Americans, that the totalitarian-minded are stirring up envy, entitlement demands, resentment, and murderous rage against.

Codrea is correct; we won't be disarmed. We have seen what disarming did to others in Armenia, in Nazi Germany, in the Soviet Union, and what will surely happen here.  So, zillionaires, enjoy your wealth.  You only earned it because of American laws that recognize property rights.  So stop pushing leftist causes and gun control.

The Biden Administration Has Found The Perfect Way Around The Constitution

I have quoted H. L. Mencken before, but here it is again: " The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." The U. N. seeks to alarm the public into  giving up our sovereinty to them, with Biden's apparent permission.

 It should not shock me with all that I have read of the Biden crime family, but it is still shocking that The U. N. Is Planning To Seize Global 'Emergency' Powers With Biden's Support. The report comes courtesy of The Federalist by Justin Haskins. Oh, of course the U.N. has been angling to make itself some sort of world government. But the world has no shortage of people vying for the roll of Dr. Evil these days, what with Klaus Schwab looking the part, the WHO proposing that IT should be the one, and of course there is Ji Jinping working assiduously to become the next hegemon. So we just add in to the mix the Secretary General of the U. N.  Who voted for this guy again?  

Still, that the Biden Administration would sell us out, is disappointing. But where's Congress in all this? Is the Congress ready to give away its powers and relevance? Well, of course it is, for a few dollars more.

In September 2024, less than two months before the next U.S. presidential election, the United Nations will host a landmark “Summit of the Future,” where member nations will adopt a Pact for the Future. The agreement will solidify numerous policy reforms offered by the U.N. over the past two years as part of its sweeping Our Common Agenda platform.

Although there are numerous radical proposals included in the agenda, perhaps none are more important than the U.N. plan for a new “emergency platform,” a stunning proposal to give the U.N. significant powers in the event of future “global shocks,” such as another worldwide pandemic.

You can read the embedded messaging from the U. N, but it is all worded very vaguely, and with a lot of Leftist gobbledy gook thrown in to sound oh so wonderful. Like most things the Left proposes, it promises Utopia while actually elevating certain global "elitists" at your and my expence. Supposedly the U. N. is run through representative governance, but really, did you ever vote for a single representative?  No?  I did't think so.

 And just what sort of "emergency" could trigger the U. N. powers? Well, there's the triple planetary crisis, whatever that is. Oh yes, and then there is (cue scary music) CLIMATE CHANGE, in which we are all going to die. Just ask St. Greta of Thunburg.  Or maybe an asteroid is going to strike earth and kill us all.

And then there is the question of what do we do if we have another global pandemic like COVID 19? The first thing I would point out is that we haven't had a global panedemic isn100 years, since the 1917 Spanish Flu. So, do we really need to spin up a world government to cover something that occurs once in 100 years? If you answered yes to that question, then there is the utter incompetence of all the "experts" involved, from Dr. Fauci, to the WHO, to locally Dr. Mandy Cohen to contend with. The thing guiding all of them was their desire to destroy the lives of as many people as possible. And when it all comes out, and it is proven that their mandates were unnecessary, all they can say is "We didn't know." They did know, but they still want more power.

Time and time again, what we have learned is that when things need doing, they are best done at the local level. Imagine if that bridge that collapsed in Philly was being rebuilt by some world government. Would it have been repaired in record time? No.  If you want it done now, you need to do it yourself.

The existence of crises like the war in Ukraine, or the so called "pandemic" or a thousand other crises have been around since man has walked the planet. Those who want to rule us are using these things as an excuse to relieve us of our liberty and make us serfs. Don't fall for it. Oh, and find out if your congressman knows what is going on, and what he plans to do about it.

Don't Do What The Chik-Fil-A Billboards Say: Eat More Cows! They're Good for You And The Planet

Today is July 4, 2023. On this day, 247 years ago, the Continental Congress declared America's independence from Great Britain and set in motion the American Revolution and the great experiment that became the American Republic (note: not Democracy.) While I still celebrate the 4th of July, I no longer fly the flag of the United States because it is no longer the United States of America. In the United States, the government was made by the consent of the governed, as documented in the Constitution of the United States. But we are now governed by unelected bureaucrats who form a kind of artistocracy in which they are exempt from the laws they impose on us.  As documented here many times, they ignore the Constitution when it is inconvenient.  And indeed, the laws are twisted such that any disfavored individual can be targeted and prosecuted at any time these aristocrats want. It reminds of the old Soviet Union, where people kept their heads down so as not to draw unwanted attention to themselves.

Speaking of the doing things with the consent of the governed rather that flooding the zone with propaganda to convince the public of things the aristocrats want rather than the people themselves, is the climate change hoax. Of course there is climate change, because the climate has been changing since the dawn of time. But the idea that man is changing the climate (for the worst) is pure male bovine excrament. Which, interestingly enough, brings up a piece at the American Thinker today by John Klar entitled Conservatives Must Lead On Climate - With Cows!

Klar points out that traditional farming of crops depletes the soil of nutrients and slowly erodes away top soil. It also kills the microbiome that we all depend on to keep us safe and healthy. ( What the heavy use of antibiotics as well as the diets we eat that are heavy in grains does to our personal microbiome is a story for another day. Suffice it to say that many people subsist on a diet that is not a proper human diet.) On the other hand, pasture raised beef, and I would add other ruminants such as sheep and goats, actually protect the soils and the environments in which they live, and of course provide us with a proper human diet. Klar points out that the current rush to kill cows is all about power and profits for the rich. They intend to substitute manufactured "meat" mostly made from soy, that they will control. Soy is of course another monocultured crop that requires methane based fertilizer. But isn't that the justification offered for killing cows?

In truth, this is an effort to dominate all food production for power and profit, while polluting the planet even more rapidly with patented meat substitutes than cows could ever cause.

Nothing exposes the folly of fake climate alarmism more clearly than efforts to exterminate cows. John Kerry and AOC want to help the climate by reducing cow herds much as PETA wants to protect animals: by killing them.

But killing cows would accelerate climate damage.

The attacks on cows are premised on a series of falsehoods (lies) that are easily exposed and countered. Consider:

– Statistics for cow-bashing are based on CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) where cows are crammed together, fed a diet heavy in corn and other soil-destroying monoculture crops, and their manure collected in lagoons. Pasture-raised cows, in contrast, eat no grain, deposit their own manure back to the ground to rebuild soils, and harvest much of their own food without tractors.

– Cow manure rebuilds soils that are rapidly eroding due to intensive tilling practices and microbiome-damaging chemical applications, including synthetic fertilizers. Cow manure replaces commercial urea (manufactured from natural gas: methane) while populating soils with the vital microbes that are killed by industrial chemical augmentations.

– Cows moved back to pasture would quickly sequester more carbon dioxide than all renewable energy manufacturing combined. In fact, it is reckoned that in merely a decade, returning just some of America’s 94.5 million cows to pasture would sequester all the carbon released since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

– The synthetic meats we are told will replace cows are fabricated in massive factories that pollute in their construction, and then process plants harvested using destructive chemical and tilling practices into faux-meat that is unhealthy for both humans and the ecosystem. Soy is the favored vat-meat constituent, but what will be used to fertilize the soy---synthetic urea manufactured from natural gas, because the cows are all gone?

– Cow manure literally replaces lost soils. About 92 million acres of corn is planted in the United States annually, losing several tons of topsoil per acre each year to erosion. How will climate alarmists replace lost soils without cows?

– Since humans don’t desire to eat the proposed replacements for burger (made from insects or plants), the meat production stifled by WEF initiatives will be replaced elsewhere: perhaps by more clearing of rainforests in Brazil. Shutting down efficient dairy or beef farms will spike food prices, threaten shortages or even famine, and incentivize farming practices more destructive than those being displaced.

– As Americans become more dependent on foreign foods shipped thousands of miles, their food security (and national security!) is precariously placed. Supply systems are vulnerable to disruption, trucks are dependent on imported diesel exhaust fluid, industrial fertilizers are imported, trains derail, and Chinese inspection regimens are dubious. A local burger is a time-tested, reliable food source.

– Cows on pasture help plants retain more nutrients, and also much more water. Soy replacements saturated with chemicals will damage soils further, decrease water retention, and amplify water pollution. The nation is on the verge of a water crisis, fueled by agriculture that favors almonds over cows, and oat milk over bovine: but these alternatives require much greater water resources than cows.

That last may need explanation, since the propaganda often lists the amount of water cows need to be brought to market. Again, with pasture raised cows, most of the moisture they need is derived from the grass they eat, which like us is mostly composed of water. Cows do not deplete ground water resources as do crops. Their water comes from rain. Consider that the buffalo, another ruminant, survived by the millions on the great plains for generations and supplied the plains Indian tribes with much of their needs. They did not need the ground water as do corn, wheat, and soy.  We no longer have huge herds of buffalo, but cows are a good substitute.

Klar is correct that what the climate alarmists are peddling is environmental destruction on an industrial scale that is designed to transfer the wealth of the citizens to the aristocrats of the far left, and turn citizens into serfs. If we want to be healthy, independent citizens, we must insist on a proper human diet consistent with our ancient hunter gatherer ancestors. Cows are an integral part of that diet. You would be surprised at how many "diseases" we suddenly don't need medication to control on such a diet.

SCOTUS Upholds Religious Liberty

 I have been out of pocket since Friday, celebrating the 40th wedding anniversary of Mrs. PolyKahr and myself.  The Mrs. wanted to go on a road trip, perhaps the last we may take, though I am considering going to the Gun Rights Policy Conference later this year, and she would go along to visit friends in Phoenix.  As a result, I had not heard any news, so it was gratifying to learn that the Supreme Court struck down Colorado's horrible Anti-Discrimination Act. I learned this at The Federalist in an article by Evita Duffy-Alfonso entitled SCOTUS Decision Protecting Religious Liberty Provides The Perfect Ending To Pride Month. The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly, especially when one is in the right.

In a perfect close to “pride month,” the Supreme Court ruled Friday that the alphabet people, or anyone else for that matter, cannot force you to affirm beliefs in violation of your own.

According to the high court, laws like Colorado’s “Anti-Discrimination Act,” which LGBT activists have used to bully Christians into going against their faith, violate Americans’ First Amendment right to free speech.

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the state of Colorado tried forcing graphic artist Lorie Smith to build a wedding website for a same-sex couple, an act which opposes her Christian belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. The case also impacts the years-long persecution of Masterpiece Cakeshop cake artist Jack Phillips, who similarly refused to make a cake celebrating same-sex marriages.

What’s important to understand about 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, though, is that Smith did not refuse to build a custom website for someone simply because that person is LGBT. Since Smith is a Christian, she did not want to celebrate and endorse same-sex marriage via her creative work, which all parties in the case agree is a form of speech.

LGBT activists, on the other hand, want to compel Smith to violate her faith by forcing her to worship the false idol of intersectionality. Spot the difference? Only one group wants to force their will on another.

Yes, one group in the culture wars is the aggressor, and it is not the Christians. By and large, most of us, most of the time, try to lead by example, though we routinely fail. But Christ uses our failure to bring about His intentions. We don't have to be perfect. But I can see where Islam and the Left would get along fine. After all, both demand obedience or else. And make no mistake, if you do not comply, the Left would as soon see you killed, but they will settle for ruining your life for now.  You can see it in the harassment of Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack Phillips.  The Leftist activists never give up.

Please go read Duffy - Alfonso's article.