Thoughts Inspired by the Dobbs Decision

The first link was found on First Things. It's a good one to share with younger people, to help them start thinking through the consequences of their actions.

The issue of "Federalism" - which, apparently, does not mean what it seems to. When I first heard the term used, I thought that it meant a system that kept all the power at the federal level.

Blame my rather typical Baby Boomer education - although most of my Social Studies teachers were Korean War vets, and generally more Conservative/Libertarian than not, still, by that point, some rot had crept in. MOST of those teachers accepted that the Federal government had the right to step into how states managed their governance (largely due to the Civil Rights efforts, which the Left - all too many of them Socialists and outright Communists).

What Federalism refers to is a system that has CERTAIN powers given to the widest level - the Federal - which gift was permitted by the individual states or regions. Beyond that limited area of responsibility, the Federal level has NO authority.

That's the intent of the 10th Amendment. That Amendment should be the focus of future efforts to hem in the Feds. BTW, to remind you:

That's what 'ya might call UNambiguous. Short, pithy, and direct.

There's a hunger for freedom, awakened in the average American. They are eager to throw off the "You-Must-Say-This, You-Must-NOT-Say-That" shackles. A recent event at UATX (University of Austin TX) found that out, when they offered students the opportunity to hear from censored speakers, and speak freely.

I love the way Time Magazine uses the term "fortify" to re-write the reality that Leftists, along with the media, NGOs of the Left, and corporate interests, used a secret process - and a WHOLE LOTTA MONEY - to make sure that the "right candidate" - Joe Biden - 'won'.

It wasn't a conspiracy (which it was), it wasn't a plot (which it was), it wasn't an attempt to manufacture or "legitimize" votes (which it was).

No. The conspirators were simply "Fortifying" our Democracy (which it is NOT - I hardly have to say that The United States of America is a Republic). And, by "Fortified", they mean that the (few) parts of it which they approve of, will be kept, and the (MANY) parts that thwart their Leftist Aims, will be trashed. And, those that even MENTION those parts will be suppressed with all the force they can muster (even if they have to use extra-legal force).

So, on this celebration of the start of the USA, try not to focus on such gloomy thoughts. There is time enough for them, over the next months and years (perhaps decades).

Instead, that unhealthy, fat and sugar laden feast with friends and family, watch Yankee Doodle Dandy for the umpteenth time, perhaps follow up with a DVD of Rigged (I got the DVD - I've seen too many viedos that "unexpectedly" get removed from Youthbe) or 2000 Mules (at $20, a bargain), or maybe a streamed montage of the 2016 election - complete with hysterical womyn or facsimile of the same.

Surprisingly, although MOST of this clip is predictable, Conan O'Brien (CONAN?!?!?!), at the end, makes the most American statement. One which I approve of.

Happy Refusal to Buckle Under to Tyranny and Overwhelming Forces Day!

The Hysterical Media Continues

Jeez, you’d think that at least a few of them could find something more worthy to occupy their time.

Like running room to room in a hooker’s hotel, delivering wet wipes between customers.

But, no.

Never happened. But, thanks to Congress and the Media, it will enter the Halls of Infamy, and become Truthy.

But WAIT!

There is a rare voice of sanity in the media.

The Coming Grid Failures

Avoidable - almost completely avoidable. And, likely to cause many deaths.

A working energy system - NOT powered by unicorns and fairy tales - is essential to a modern society. We have hit a crisis point.

1. The supply system is trashed. Both the shipping screw-ups, and the diesel shortages/ridiculous prices are the major contributors to that mess. ALL have been allowed to happen by political and corporate action. The politicians have bent their knees to the Enviro-Nuts, and corporate has attempted to go around barriers to American manufacture and sales by outsourcing everything except their own bodily functions. As a result, when these delicaely balanced systems fail - as they almost inevitably will - chaos ensues.
2. Deliberate "shortages" of essential inputs to American business - power, people to move goods, stockpiles of essential goods without punitive taxes being imposed on them, raw materials mining/manufacture at a competitive price, and a host of other government-imposed barriers to Free Trade within American borders, have all contributed to thte mess. The Enviro-Nuts provide the EXCUSE for regulations and legislations; the problem is that too many people in a position to impose a stranglehold have gained power, and are loath to lose it.
3. Hardening the grid against physical or cyber-attacks is a program that Trump tried to get moving. In the future, when a president identifies a security risk, and the bureaucrats/placeholders refuse to implement it, those obstructionists need to be FIRED. Immediately. That is why I'm increasingly supporting DeSantis for 2024 - Trump talks a good game, and certainly had some successes, but DeSantis has a track record that is better.

In another story, a respected medical doctor, researcher, and university professor has been banned from Twitter - for referencing a scientific study that found that men's sperm was reduced after injection with the Covid shot. Apparently, Liberal Arts and Humanities grads are more qualified to judge the science than doctors.

Good to know. Nice to know that our REAL masters are on the job.

ONE City. 800,000 Potentially Eligible Foreign Nationals Could Have Voted

NYC's recent election of mayor, won by Eric Adam, was decided by less than 1% of that headline number.

Still think election registrations are fair, and not slanted to one side or the other?

Fortunately, a NY state judge actually READ the NY Constitution, and struck it down.

THAT'S why Constitutions count. Because they stop people who are temporarily in power from loading the dice to keep themselves PERMANENTLY there.

At this point, the overwhelming majority of the Civil Rights Enforcement mechanism, at the national level, is simply not needed. They keep trumpeting cases of "Horrifying" voting rights abuse, that, when examined, turn out to be:

The Establishment Left didn't win, and they're PI$$ED!

That's it. In one Black majority area in the South, where ALL the elected officials were Black, the Office on Civil Rights refused to let them make some inconsequential changes to their election regulations. Because, at one time, White Democrats kept Black people from voting. And, because of that history, the elected officials needed to have potential changes PRE-CLEARED with the OCR. Even thought, as I remember, Black people were in the majority of those elected.

So Black people, who overwhelmingly supported the changes, were being told they were not permitted to do so. The OCR would make that decision for them. 

It's all about the POWER.

How Access to Abortion and the Sexual 'Revolution' Happened

It's not as easy as the Official Women's Movement (Gloria Steinem et al) would have it. Nor, were all of the people and groups involved with it completely honest (in some cases, deliberate liars).

Here's a good starting point for beginners: Subverted (if you're broke, send me a message with contact info, and I can lend you my Kindle edition for a short time).

Another valuable resource is this link to an examination of the Socialist leanings of Betty Friedan. Her pushing of Feminism was in great part due to her Leftist philosophy, not the reverse. Her politics were not typical of the average American woman, and she deliberately hid them from the public for quite some time.

Another Leftist who downplayed her Leftist roots was Gloria Steinem. She weathered criticism from the Left when her CIA backing was revealed. The link is to a friend's page on Freethought. Dr. Singh is CWRU Physics professor, born in Sri Lanka, who has been associated with teacher education for decades. He is a moderate, politically and socially, neither Conservative nor Leftist.

How has America changed over recent years, and why is that a bad thing?

Many who want a return to a country that is not aggressively ruled by non-elected people with no real stake in the organization they are inserting themselves into, are often accused of "wanting to return the USA to Jim Crow". That is a malicious and completely wrong interpretation of the sentiment. The presence of Neo-Nazis in many non-Leftist public actions is taken by those accusing their opponents, as EVIDENCE of rampant Fascist activity.

Face it - SOME of those uniformed people are idiots. Just low-IQ people who are captivated by the opportunity to strut around in the "Bad Guys" uniforms. They are no more Nazis in fact than Prince Harry, who put on a Nazi Halloween costume was. Just dumba$$es who liked to preen before  a mirror, posing as a tough guy.

SOME of them are FBI informers, currying favor with the Feebs by egging other, dumber participants to more and more outrageous acts, in a effort to keep their subsidized gig going. Some prod and nudge the clueless to go along with criminal acts; the Michigan 'plot' to kidnap the governor, was one such activity - which, a jury decided, would not have happened without some serious pressure AND procurement of tools to commit the crime by the FBI. So, they acquitted the accused, confident that they were basically not dangerous.

And a few many even sympathicize with Fascists. Which, in America, is actually NOT a crime by itself.

One pernicious ideology is the concept of Stakeholders, person/organizations without a serious financial committment (other than perhaps a stock share) nor any legal interest in a company or organization, who, nonetheless, wants veto power over corporate decisions. What Stakeholders are, generally, is buttinskies or bystanders who want to tell others what they should do.

Stakeholders are deeply embedded in European countries, both in and independent of government. Their presence (as demonstrated in the above link) has contributed heavily to the oppressive taxation that - along with unregulated immigration - is bringing those EU countries to the edge of bankruptcy.

One book that was highly influential when it was written is Aborting America, by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the early promoters of abortion reform, who personally aborted over 60,000 babies in his career, before having a change of heart, and becoming an active proponent of abortion restrictions.

Funnily (OK, NOT so funnily), his book is NOT available in ebook format, nor are reasonably priced used copies available. Why, it's ALMOST as though there was a conspiracy to keep this book unavailable to the public. There are (a handful) of books for sale (both hardcover and paperback), but they are priced at HUNDREDS of dollars per book. And, yet, despite many inquiries, the publishers are completely uninterested in issuing a reprint in e-format.

Curious, isn't it?

That book is only available for hundreds of dollars; if you are lucky enough to find it in libraries, I highly recommend checking it out.

Allied to abortion and contraception is loosening of divorce laws. Here's a post that connects all of them.

Whittling Away at 2nd Amendment Rights

Funnily enough, advocating or promoting violence against the 'dreaded White people' - who apparently pose a grave threat to other's existence, just by living, never seems to quality as hate.

Even the mildest expression of concern or even dislike of viewpoint - for example, saying that bringing in sexually related discussion to K-3 classrooms is inappropriate, or that people possessing a penis, however they dress or present themselves, are men - is "Evidence" of hate.

And, therefore, a reason to deny a citizen their 2nd Amendment rights (no, NON-citizens do not have that right).

Properly, 2nd Amendment protections for carrying a gun (whether openly or concealed, depending on the laws in that state), are best described as "you have the right to own and use a gun, unless you present a CLEAR and GRAVE danger to the public". That's the idea behind "SHALL issue" vs. "MAY issue" when it pertains to issuance of gun permits. In the first case, barring a clear and grave reason for denying the permit - such a SERIOUS mental illness (not just mild depression or anxiety), a CRIMINAL record - conviction, not just an arrest, or demonstrated threats against others or violent actions in public (like the people calling for Justice Thomas' assassination, or the guy that assaulted Rand Paul), the authorities must issue the gun permit.

A person should have a way to appeal a denial, in court, using evidence. They might point out that the crime they were convicted of was many years in the past, for example. Or that, despite some physical actions during a marriage, or near its end, they have healed the relationship with the ex, and that person is willing to state so in a notarized form.

The VAST majority of gun crimes, whether involving property or threats/acts against a person, are committed by persons who wouldn't qualify to buy a gun or get a license. They have records, they are too young, they are addicted to drugs or alcohol (I prefer to refer to both as chemical addictions - there really is little difference, other than possibly the legality of buying one type).

The other category is suicides. Many of them will commit suicide, no matter that they cannot own a gun. They may choose other methods. They may obtain a gun from some other person, either by borrowing/taking it, or stealing it.

The gun doesn't kill a suicidal person. Their mental/emotional state DOES.

The Sudden Concern About the Gerontocracy in America

Now, after President Trump had the opportunity to appoint Justices who would return the Supreme Court to their original (Marbury v. Madison) focus on assessing the Constitutional legitimacy of legislation and regulation, the Dems are SUDDENLY concerned about old folks in elected or appointed seats.

They were fine about doddering old Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Maxine Waters, Bill Pascrell, Grace Napolitano, and Eddie Bernice Johnson. All are in their 80s or older. There are Republicans on the list, too, including Chuck Grassley, among others.

But, look to younger, potential competitors to spread "concern" about them in anonymous comments to reporters, and, with luck, clear the way for younger players. THAT'S what is behind the push to get rid of the old people in government. They are afraid that, should that incumbent run against a younger, more energetic opponent, the Dems could lose that seat. They want to shove that long-serving member out before that happens.

Now, is Di-Fi really losing it? Very likely. But, the right way to remove her is to get the leadership to pressure her to retire. For many of these geezers, not gonna happen.

So, take the sudden "concern" about senility or health of an aging politician with a heavy dose of salt. It's not that they care about the old person's functioning. It's that they care how it affects their chances of staying in power.

However, I would be thrilled to have a mandatory retirement age for government paid workers of around 80. Yes, there are a few who stay alert and able well into their 80s and 90s - but not many. And, the decisions need to be made by people who are young enough to have skin in the game. 

I would also like a cap on post-retirement income for military, Congress, and people who can affect administration of government funds. For 2-5 years, they should NOT be able to take jobs with those who could have been affected by their actions. That's not the case, currently.