Why Mask Mandates Are A Socialist Attempt To Make Us All Say What We Don't All Believe

In every group, it seems, there is a Karen, using whatever they can to signal their virtue by calling out those they think are not virtuous.  The latest way to virtue signal is to loudly shout about the latest dictates from our mini-Cuomo, Governor Cooper.  Our local tyrant has decided that there shall be a statewide mandate to wear masks whenever in public.  This news is dutifully reported by masked talking heads on the local news channels.

So, let me explain, again, why I find this mask wearing both unhelpful and a socialist way to make us say things we don't truly believe, but we also don't want to get crosswise with the local constabulary.  I contend that this is the true reason why it is being mandated, and not to protect the public, or prevent the spread of the virus.

Wearing a mask in the open air, while keeping reasonable distances does no good, except as a way to virtue signal.  Furthermore, most of the masks are...how should I put it...as useless as tits on a boar hog.  Cloth masks, which of course are washable, are also sieves for the virus.  I have read that such masks may be at most 7% effective.  But of course, as soon as you put them on, they become filled with a load of bacteria and viruses, not to mention various bodily fluids.  Paper masks are also not that effective, should be changed often, and of course, if you are a man with facial hair, probably about as effective as...well you get the idea.  Masks should be properly fitted to be effective.

Of course, Karens will point out that if one doesn't wear a mask, one simply doesn't care about others.  Really?  If I do not have the virus, then who, prey tell, am I endangering?  If I am not sick, then I can not spread the disease to someone who is particularly vulnerable.  But, again I think those most vulnerable should know their own condition and take necessary precautions.  It is not up to everyone else to know the individual situations of everyone else they meet.  But if they did have such a responsibility, then they would have to wear more extensive containment systems, assuming again that they were sick in the first place.  Is this beginning to seem a circular argument?

Oh, but here is where the arguments for masks start to spiral in on themselves.  The proponents of masks will point out that you don't know you are sick.  You might have the virus, and not know it.  To be sure, there is the famous case of Typhoid Mary. However, every time I go to work, they take my temperature, which is usually somewhat on the cool side. If I were sick, wouldn't I have even a mild temperature?  After all, the invasion of a virus generates a response from the immune system that results in some, if even mild, inflammation.  It is only by going through some level of inflammation that the body can generate antibodies.

Now, if you really want to see how to control infections, here is some Covid-19 Protection Advice From A Dentist.

So imagine my bewilderment in the age of the COVID-19 pandemic at all the politicians, pundits, and talking heads who've suddenly become experts in infection control — not to mention all the lay people wearing masks of every conceivable design and standing six feet away from others, as if six feet were some magic number. Poor sheeple — they think they're safe, they're following the "science," and far be it from me to disabuse them of their imaginary sense of security.

As I was saying, I'm just a dentist — with forty-five years of studying and practicing infection control — and here's how I see it. We live in a sea of bacteria, viruses, and Spirochetes (Lyme Disease, syphilis), a veritable Grand Central Station of pathogens, all of them vying to take us down. They're on doorknobs and newspapers, in our air and water, and emanating from the mouths (and other orifices!) of our fellow human beings.

One way to protect yourself from these ubiquitous bugs is to raise your immune status. Eat better, exercise more, get your sleep, and manage your stress. Like the USS Enterprise from Star Trek, you want your shields up at full capacity and the warp engines working. Run yourself into the ground with bad habits or bad thoughts, and you get sick.

I won't give advice on diet here, except to say that certain doctors have a lot of clinical patients to show that NOT eating some items reduces inflamation, which helps to control weight, makes moving easier, and improves your immune system and its response. 'nough said.

You enter a treatment room, and after several minutes of witty repartee with your patient, you wash your hands thoroughly with warm water and soap, and long enough to hum the theme song to Gilligan's Island. Then you carefully put on a mask, protective goggles, and gloves. Done right, the patient's protected from you, and you're protected from the patient.

Now, here's the exciting part. When you're done abusing the poor patient's molars, all your PPE is contaminated, chock-full of pathogens and bodily fluids. You throw your mask and gloves away and leave your goggles to be disinfected by the assistant who later cleans up the operatory. Because you just touched your contaminated PPE, you wash your hands again before leaving the room, this time humming the theme to Mr. Ed. A horse is a horse, of course.

And you do this again and again and again, going through boxes of gloves and masks every day, and spending thousands of dollars on high-tech goggles so there's one pair in every room. If your dentist walks around the office with glasses or loupes hanging from his neck, he ain't doing it right. If he doesn't wash his hands at a sink, but instead rubs a little Purell on them, he's faking it. I've probably spent 10–15% of my time on the planet washing my hands — so much so that my arm hair ends exactly where an latex glove would begin. But my infection control protocol works. I've treated coughing, hacking, sneezing patients for entire winters without catching a cold.

So, if you want to do something more that just virtue signal, which I have always found to be...well...as useless as...you get the idea...then try you might want to consider following the advice given here:

Wash your hands,

Keep your areas clean,

If you are sick don’t go to work but go to the doctor and

Don’t hang around with people you know are sick.

Oh, and by the way, that hand sanitizer that has become ubiquitous everywhere...don't bother.  Sanitizing is not the same as sterilizing.  Sanitizing is like mowing the lawn.  It tends to cut down the amount of bacteria and other things on you hands, but it doesn't get rid of them, and bacteria reproduce pretty fast. Sterilization, which most people think they are doing by using hand sanitizer, kills every living thing on the surface of the object.  it is usually accomplished by placing the object in an autoclave.  If you did it to your hands, and if you could stand the pain, your hands would now be as dead as a brick. and would be totally useless.   And using hand sanitizer doesn't really clean your hands.  Instead, even using just water is more effective.  After all, you don't really want to get rid of the bacteria on your hands.  They are a part of your micobiome, and help to protect you more than that useless mask.

Conservatives Need To Push Back

I have been busy, so today I have two very different posts to highlight for you, gentle reader.

The first comes from the American Thinker written by J. B. Shurk and entitled Conservatives Are Treated Like Second Class Citizens, And That's Dangerous . Shurk raises again the fact that our Constitution is a sort of social contract in which citizens give up certain sovereign rights to the government in return for the government protecting those rights.

I have a question. What use is a federal government that refuses to protect our basic constitutional rights? Twitter and Google and Facebook are censoring and demonizing conservative political speech, and nobody does a thing. Democrat mayors and governors are bankrupting American citizens by preventing them from engaging in simple commerce, and they're getting away with it. Street mobs across America are causing millions of dollars in property damage, destroying priceless historical monuments; killing police officers; and targeting random, unlucky citizens based on the color of their skin, and the press cheerlead the madness and defend the murderers and arsonists as heroes. John Kerry just the other day threatened the United States by declaring that if Democrats don't win the election in November, they will insist on "revolution."

Revolution? How else can you describe this incendiary cocktail of mob violence and flagrant denial of conservatives' constitutional rights, aided and abetted and kept volatile by Democrat mayors who applaud the mayhem, Democrat prosecutors who refuse to enforce the law, and Democrat-aligned corporations who happily treat conservatives as second-class citizens? The whole point of the Constitution is to create a social contract whereby each citizen hands over the legitimate use of force to the federal government in exchange for the promise that certain inalienable, God-given rights be guaranteed. When the federal government fails to protect Americans' free speech and religious worship and does nothing while Democrats in local offices and on the streets deprive Americans of their property and livelihoods under the color of law, shouldn't the federal government be afraid that Americans from Maine to New Mexico might one day wake up and say, "All right, contract cancelled"?

The above are the opening paragraphs of Shurk's article. In it he lays out the basis of his complaint, which he then discusses in greater detail in the paragraphs that follow.  He points out that all three of the branches of government have betrayed the average American in favor of a Leftist (not liberal) policies.  He notes that the tech giants have systematically kicked conservative voices off their platforms.  These platforms are the equivalent of the public square, and should not discriminate.  The have become publishers and should be treated as such.  The Supreme Court has routinely treated us to Unconstitutional rulings pleasing only Leftists.  Governors have taken the opportunity of Covid-19 to place us under house arrest, dstroy our businesses, and force us to wear masks with no real authority, and one sided scientific reasoning.

Please go read Shurk's article.  It has more, much more about the dangers the U. S. government is courting by continuing to push these policies.

But, speaking of governors of states taking on tyrannical powers that were not anticipated by the legislators that set up more limited emergency powers, there is another article at the American Thinker by Judith Acosta entitled Until We Have Faces: The American Niqaab Here in North Carolina, our own mini-Cuomo, Governor Cooper has instituted a requirement to wear a mask in public. This despite the news media's insistence that the protests, rioting, looting, and vandalism, where few people were masked, and where nobody was observing social distancing practices, that there appears to be no effect of thse on the incidence of Covid-19. If the news media is correct, it calls into question the usefulness of masks and social distancing.

All this is brought up by the article, but there is more to it too. When everyone is required to wear a mask, everyone becomes the faceless 'other," the faceless "alien."  In Muslim countries, women are required to wear the niqaab, which covers her entirely, making one woman look just like every other woman.  Instead of having an individual personality, every woman is reduced to being an object.  And that is how Leftists look at Americans.  Note the language difference.  We refer to people as individuals.  Each one of us is endowed with certain unalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.  Leftists call us "the masses."  To them. we are widgits in a machine.  Masking us helps them to make of us what they dream.

A while back, a colleague and I were talking about the effect of the niqaab on children in Muslim countries. Although we were on opposite ends of the spectrum politically, we agreed wholeheartedly that covering the mother’s face (and anyone who looked like the mother, meaning all women) was fundamentally, psychologically, and spiritually destructive in the extreme. The one who birthed, caressed, and fed you was as personal and recognizable as a mass-manufactured tent. Ultimately what happens is that women are literally objectified, meaning, they are things, “others,” and, as such, dangerous or, at best, utilitarian.

...ship...

This is a harbinger of a few things that are deeply troubling to me –and should be to you. Because despite the fact that fewer people have become ill in this pandemic than during an average flu season, and despite the medical data that show not only the futility of a rag over the face but the potential harm, and despite the fact that herd immunity suffers from artificial “flattening of the curve,” people are persisting in the illusion that a facial covering can make them safe.

...snip...

What’s the point of all this covering? To answer it, like following the trail of money, you have to follow the trail of policies. What pleases the left? Look at Russia, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba:A mass of needy, broken souls who place their offerings and ersatz prayers at the feet of Congress in the hope that the government will save them. Even more tragically, a group of souls who no longer believe they are souls and can no longer recognize the soul standing right next to them.

Acosta also comments about the destructive effect on our personal relationships with these masking requirements. Please read the Acosta's article. All this suggests that conservatives need to be pushing back against the current changes taking place in our communities.

The Virus Destroying The West

Today I present a video of Gad Saad, discussing his new book The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense here.

Saad points out that the basic virus is an escape from reality.  The different strains of the virus may look different, but at heart they all deny reality in favor of wishful or magical thinking.  Thus identity politics, or feminism, or trans whatever all deny various forms of reality. And, if you can deny the reality you can see, and hear, and touch, then it is possible to blame someone else for the circumstances of your life.  You are not responsible for your choices and your failures, someone else is.  Society, or white privilege or Western civilization, or racism.  Yeah, that's the ticket.

But here's the thing.  No one is a victim if he or she chooses not to be.  And no, activism is not the answer either.  Rioting, and looting and vandalism require very little work.  The truth is that you may not be able to be a billionaire, but you can make a comfortable living.  You can have a good family, and some luxuries too.  It takes a lot of hard work, but you can do it.  The truth is that anything of worth and value requires a lot of hard work.

I am not a genius; who do I blame?  My parents?  And I will never be a rock star (thank goodness.)  But I am not those things only because I chose other things on which to concentrate.  Had I put the same amount of time and effort into being a rock musician as I did into becoming an engineer, I would be a rock star.  Or a physician, or a lawyer, or...  My point is that this is true for everyone.  Of course, there are certain physical limitations.  I would never be a Michael Jordan, because I am not tall enough or athletic enough.  But for the great majority of things in life, physical limitations can be overcome where there is a will to do so.

Please go and watch Gad Saad: Bad Ideas Are Destroying The West. It is a bit long, so save it for when you''ve got an hour or so.  The thing you can do is to challenge these ideas wherever you encounter them.  Some people who are indoctrinated may become violent, so be prepared for that.  Reality is often not pleasant, but in the end our very happiness depends on acknowledging that our lives, are the result of our own choices, good and bad.  And if we don't like how are lives have turned out so far, we can indeed change things. 

An Immigrant On The Second Amendment

I especially like Charles C. W. Cooke's take on the Second Amendment, and it is too bad it comes from an immigrant to this country.  Everyone who was born here should know, understand, and exercise their Second Amendment rights, not try to justify throwing them away.  On June 3, 2020, Cooke wrote a very sensible piece at the National Review entitled Why We Need Guns. It's a statement, not a question. We do need guns:

‘Only the cops need guns” simply could not live forever alongside, “The cops are racist and will kill you.” And so, at long last, the two circles of the Venn Diagram have filed for an amicable divorce. In the end, the differences proved irreconcilable.

At least, they proved irreconcilable without descending into farce. I have been told more times that I can count that “if you want to own an AR-15, you should join the army or the police.” Oh, really. Why? So that I can be pulled back when the rioting starts, lest I inflame those wielding bricks and Molotov cocktails? So that I can be called a fascist, acting in the service of a dictator? So that I can be part of the problem? In light of the new fashions, these old injunctions look rather silly, don’t they? “You don’t need 15 rounds; you’re not a cop! Also, the police are corrupt from top to bottom, and should probably be abolished.”

Pick one, perhaps?

I know the Left is not big on logic, but I know you, dear readers, are. Furthermore, you must realize that there are always those who do not observe the rules of ordered liberty, so must be policed.  But, when the police do not do their jobs, or are ordered not to by their political bosses, the public at large is on its own.  You are always your own first responder.

In any case, the idea that the existence of police officers in some way negates the right to bear arms has always been a ridiculous one. Police are an auxiliary force that we hire to do a particular job — there to supplement, not to replace, my rights and responsibilities. Every time we debate gun control in the United States, I am informed that the Sheriff of Whatever County is opposed to liberalization. To which I always think, “So what?” My right to keep and bear arms is merely the practical expression of my underlying right to self-defense. That, as a polity, we have decided to hire certain people to take the first shot at keeping the peace is fine. But it has no bearing on my liberties.

And how could it, given that I do not live in a police station? The old saw that “when seconds count, the police are minutes away” is trotted out as often as it is because it is unquestionably true. Whether the average police department is virtuous or evil is irrelevant here. What matters is that no government has the right — and in America, mercifully, no government has the legal power — to farm out, and then to abolish, my elementary rights. It would not fly if the government hired people to speak for me and then shut down my speech; if would not fly if the government hired people to worship for me and then restricted my right to exercise my religion; and it will not fly for the government to hire a security agency and then to remove, or limit, my access to weaponry. This is a personal question, not an aggregate question: I have one life, and I am entitled to defend it in any way I see fit against those who would do me harm. If there is a single principle that has animated this realm since the time of the Emperor Justinian, it is that.

Oh, and by the way, just because a court decides that a government does have the legal power to take away your rights...any of your rights...does not make it so. The U. S. Constitution stands, as written, not as interpreted by the latest Federal Court ruling.  The power to change the Constitution through rulings was a self serving power arrogated to themselves, and is not in the Constitution.   And those who take an oath to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic, are supposed to defend the Constitution as written, not based on the latest fad du jour.

Historically, the Sheriff of the County was the only police force there was.  He, of course, if need be, could call up various members of the public as a posse and deputize them. The Sheriff, then as now, operated to support the county courts.  Other than that, there was no dedicated police force at the local level.  The first police department in the United States was New York City in 1845.  Now, every city seems to have a police department, but it is true that cities could contract with another agency to provide police services.  But, again, the existence of a police force does not negate the individuals right (or need) for keeping and bearing weapons for self defense, defense of one's family and neighbors, and defense of one's property.

Please go read Cooke's piece.  It is one of the best explanations of the place of the Second Amendment in American life that I have read.  Does it really require an immigrant to see this?  Oh, one last quote from this excellent article:

Underlying most of the arguments that are leveled by the gun-control movement is the assumption that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is historically contingent: upon a time, upon a people, upon a place. They are wrong. The Second Amendment is as relevant today as it was during the totalitarian 20th century; as it was when Ida B. Wells was observing that “the only case where [a] proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves”; as it was in the revolutionary era; as it was when all roads led to Rome. There will be no age in which it becomes unnecessary, nor any transmutation of the human character that renders it moot. This is History. Right now. And Samuel Colt ain’t abandoning anyone.

Just in case you are unsure about where the rage of the mob is going, and why you may need to be armed, here is a piece by Christopher Bedford at The Federalist entitled Everywhere Statues Are Torn Down By The Mob, History Promises People Are Nest. Bedford uses the French Revolution as his prime example, but he is correct in his assertion that it always happens everywhere.  Go read Bedrford's article as well.

Forewarned Is Forearmed

We have two articles to highlight today, and I will tie them together after I present each.

The first article comes from The Arbalest Quarrel at Ammoland entitled The Supreme Court Will Not Defend The Second Amendment! As many of us have suspected for a while now, Chief Justice Roberts was a false flag candidate for the position of Chief Justice, posing as a conservative to get the position, then revealing his true colors as a Leftist once on the Court.  Under these conditions, the Court will not defend the Second Amendment.  They had ten cases from which to choose, all of which ticks off the reasons to grant a writ to one of them:

Conflict of law: The Supreme Court may elect to step in and make a ruling when different courts reach different conclusions about federal or constitutional law. With 13 federal circuits and 50 state supreme courts, the U.S. Supreme Court may want to step in and clarify certain legal issues so every court operates under the same law going forward.

National importance: If a case has national significance and is important to the public as a whole, the Supreme Court may decide to take it on. The Supreme Court has discretion when it comes to taking these cases, such as Bush v. Gore after the contested 2000 election, Roe v. Wade, or US v. Nixon concerning the Watergate tapes.

Lower courts disregarding Supreme Court decisions: If a case has arisen because lower courts are disregarding past Supreme Court decisions, the Supreme Court may decide to hear the case to correct the lower court or overrule the case without a full trial.

Justices’ interest: In certain cases, a justice may want to hear a certain case because it addresses an issue in their personal favorite area of law.

Please read the entire article, and of course, go to The Arbalest Quarrel and read their other very complete analysis of Second Amendment issues. But what does this mean for Americans, particularly in a time of the governments failing in its duty to protect society? Interestingly, the second article today outlines exactly the shirking of that duty that is taking place because of the cowardice of various polititians and so called "leaders." The article, written by E. M. Cadwaladr at the American Thinker entitled Who Owns The Streets?:

The early 20th-century sociologist Max Weber starkly observed that a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is what defines a state. In other words, only a county's own acknowledged government has the ultimate right to use force against its citizens. With the very limited exception of immediate self-defense, the use of force by anyone other than the government must be seen as an act of either criminality or war. A federal system such as ours may complicate things a little — but the principle still holds true. If anyone outside the legitimate government is ceded the right to use violence to achieve his own ends, the government becomes a nullity to the extent of that allowance.

Ugly and un-utopian though this principle may sound, it benefits society as a whole. It cannot be denied that there are, and have always been, people in civilized societies who are unfit to live in them. There have always been murderers, rapists, and thieves. Even under the best imaginable set of laws and social conditions, there will always be people unconstrained by human empathy or social inhibitions. Someone must police them. Humanity will never be wholly free from antisocial behavior, so someone, however imperfect, has to be there to stop it short when it occurs.

Today, unfortunately, the voice of reason has been shouted down. Many of our cities and states have begun to disintegrate under cowering politicians who surrender their dignity and our safety to the mob. When people are suffered to loot, riot, desecrate, murder, and seize territory while officials stand idly by, it is more than just the latest cultural outrage. It is a failure by public officials to meet even the table stakes of their own legitimacy. Why should anyone, rich or poor, black or white, bother listening to Mayor Durkan of Seattle? She has ceded the heart of her city to armed extremists when she had the means to stop them. Small business–owners in Seattle, Minneapolis, and New York have dutifully paid their taxes — only to have their shops first closed by the government, then set on fire by the rioters. Mayors and governors have done nothing. These officials are no more than cringing little criminals — who prey upon the weak but kneel subserviently before a bolder, scarier class of thugs. Small business–owners in these lawless places have no legitimate local or state governments. What choice do they have but to cut their losses and vote with their feet?

Implied here is the concept of a social contract, wherein individuals, including business poeple, pay their taxes, satisfy the requirements for business licenses and in general obey the law, and the government in turn protects them from looters and rioters, from thieves and murderers, and all manner of others who would prey on these people. By giving the rioters space to carry out their tantrums, government has effectively broken the social contract.  By granting that the rioters may have a point, they have signaled to the rest of us that we are on our own.

Here then, is the point of both articles:  The Supreme Court, the last resort of those seeking redress of grievances, will not defend your God given rights as secured by the United States Constitution.  Not if your rights conflict with some leftist policy du jour. Every indication is that these riots, lootings, and tantrums will spread. And there is no indication that the police will be released to enforce the law. Under such circumstances, a wise person will be armed at all times. No, I am not suggesting vigilante actions, but for self defense and the defense of your loved ones and your property (your pursuit of happiness.)  You will also need ammunition and training.  Keep in mind that ammunition can be used as a trade good in a SHTF situation.

Forewarned is forearmed.

One Major Party As Taken The Enemy's Side

The Left has declared war on the American nation, on individual liberty and rights, on private business, indeed, on everything that is America.  They are stealing our history in hopes of separating us from our history, creating a rootless people.  Meanwhile, people who believe in the American republic, what I call lower case "r" republicans, seem not to quite believe that we are indeed at war.  This is brought home by an article at the American Thinker entitled Republicans Must Understand: We Are At War by Dave Kado. While the proximate cause of the current rioting, looting, vandalism, arsons, and the taking down of statues and destruction of monuments is the death of George Floyd whil in custoday of police. But this was just an excuse. Black Lives Matter, like Antifa is a Marxist group dedicated to the destruction of this country by any means necessary.

Understand that these Leftists have already dehumanized you in their own minds, a necessary step in executing a war.  They hate you, and everything you stand for and love.  They even hate your God, believing religion to be the 'opiate of the masses."  While, for the moment this war does not appear to be a shooting war, the fact that their philosophy justifies any action to take place if it advances the cause means republicans must be prepared for anything. But, in terms of what we can do, here are some actions republicans can take:

Despite the apparent power differential between the two sides, all is not lost. In order for us (the Republicans) to have a fighting chance, we need to realize and embrace the situation we're in with eyes wide open and adapt our tactics accordingly, and everyone needs to join the fray. We must stop pretending we're the majority, or that we have the power, or that people will eventually agree with us, or that we have the moral high ground, or that our enemy is willing to meet us in the ideological space with Marquess of Queensbury debate rules. To return to military terms, we can't stand up an army and slug it out in a field with our opponents — they would destroy us. Maybe thirty years ago, or even fifteen, this was possible, but now no longer. Given the situation, guerrilla tactics are much more plausible and effective and give us a fighting chance.

What does this look like? That's for you to decide. A guerrilla army's strength lies in its unpredictability and lack of centralization. Some ideas I've had, as someone who lives in a deep blue area, include printing pamphlets of various "wrongthink" subjects and disseminating them. Homeschooling, history of the Democrats (focusing on the Civil War and beyond), degradation of the food system, etc. are all good subjects — anything that counters the mainstream narrative of those in power. Get people to start questioning the official narrative, for let's not forget whose side the official narrative belongs to.

Forge alliances; join like-minded organizations, coordinate letter or call campaigns; engage in boycotts of businesses (while making sure those businesses know why you're doing what you're doing). Recent events have opened a door for us to start ideologically converting people — if not completely to our side, at least out of the Democrat camp. Put a chink in the leftist armor and let the air of invulnerability that they've projected be used against them. Let them know we're here, but do it in a non-confrontational non-direct way. (Screaming matches and arguments do little to alter the balance of power and merely have the reverse effect of strengthening their resolve.) Let them truly grasp the situation as well. Let them develop paranoia as they fight to maintain every last inch of their kingdom. Make them tired and weak and humiliated. Electing President Trump was a good start, and we need to ensure his re-election. However, his presidency should be viewed as an opening salvo as opposed to a final blow. Let them know we're on the offensive and no longer willing to run and hide and hope they leave us alone.

For a fuller understanding of Black Lives matter, please read David Horowitz's article Bllack Lives Are A Pretext. The article makes clear that what they really want, and what strategies they are prepared to utilize to achieve it.  Defunding the police, while taking away the guns from the law abiding makes perfect sense to these people, precisely because they have no intention of giving up their guns.  They mean to win, make no mistake.

Please go read both articles, and begin thinking about what you will do. 

The Left Is Peddling A Lie

I have been watching the rioting, looting, calls to defund the police, and other horrible and evil behavior surrounding the death of George Floyd at the hands of police.  His funeral was so grandiose as to make it seem like a President of the United States, a Pope, or other world leader.  It is helpful to remember that George Floyd had an extensive criminal record, as noted in this report at The American Partisan entitled The Making Of A Martyr (For All The Wrong Reasons) Once again, the Left has taken a position and spun up people world wide to loot, riot, and destroy the lives of numerous innocent people for a horrible case like Floyd. Not that the behavior is either right or moral, but the lease they could do is wait for a sympathetic case.

Make no mistake, here.  I do not believe that Floyd deserved to die.  The officer had him controlled, and handcuffed, so should not have kept his weight on Floyd's neck choking him.  Nothing noted above justifies the officer's actions.  But the officer has been charged, and we shoulld all wait to see if justice will be done.

The fact is that the subject of the Left's ire discredits the entire enterprise.  Floyd was engaged in a criminal act, one that fits will a long record of other criminal acts.  By working so hard to make a martyr of George Floyd, the Left has lied to the American people, and in so doing have shown that the entire enterprise is one big lie.  No one should be even remotely sympathetic with the goals of the Left, whether it is BLM or the fascist Antifa.  They are peddling a lie.