A Glimpse of Old South Bend, Indiana

I was born in South Bend, as was my mother, and I lived there until I left for college. I recall an old-world looking area downtown, on the river; long since demolished for "urban renewal", its interesting topography leveled ... and then left vacant for decades.

The neighborhood of interesting old houses in which my grandmother had owned several properties, one of which we owned after her death, is long gone; prey to "urban blight" and then "urban renewal" ... i.e. properties turned into "Section 8" or welfare rentals to extract as much income as quickly as possible while expending as little as possible on maintenance.

Mansfield Ohio, where I have lived since 1982, never flew as high, nor grew as large, as South Bend did. And so, oddly enough, there is still more of the "old-world look" left in Mansfield. At the same time, Mansfield did demolish its old, and beautiful, government buildings to replace them with modernist monstrosities, whereas South Bend sometimes re-purposed its old government buildings when the government "outgrew" them.

Interestingly, the now-extinct Studebaker Corporation, which fueled most of the growth of South Bend, was originally founded in Mansfield.

=====

EDIT: As I'm watching the video, especially toward the end, he keeps voicing some weird, inchoate conspiracy theory about not trusting the timeline. I suspect that he's pushing that "Tartaria" bullshit. Oh, well; it was nice seeing pictures of beautiful old buildings, some of which I recall from my youth.

PS: I attended the Studebaker Elementary School, an old photo seen at the 23:26 mark (in my time, it had extensive single-storey modern additions 'round about), in kindergarten and first grade, and then again in 6th and 7th grades. After that, my father managed to get us into a private Christian school ... because the administration of the school wanted to come down on me -- a mere kid -- for calling out, to their faces, their cowardice in the face of mob behavior by "ghetto" black students. Mind you, this was way back in the early 1970s; that is how long the people who rule us have been winking at, and indeed encouraging, the very sort of "ratchet" behavior which is destroying or civilization.

Old World South Bend Indiana

Exploding the Myth of "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government", with Stephen Miller

Please understand what Stephen Miller is saying in the linked video.

Well, the Constitution is clear. And, that [i.e. the Constitution] is. of course, the supreme law of the land. ... Look, a lot of it [i.e. suspending habeas corpus with respect to illegal aliens] depends on whether the courts do the right thing, or not. At the end of the day, Congress passed a body of law, known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, which stripped Article III courts -- that's the Judicial branch -- of jurisdiction over immigration cases.  So, Congress actually passed -- it's called 'jurisdiction stripping legislation'.  They passed a number of laws that say that the Article III courts aren't even allowed to be involved in immigration cases.  Many of you probably don't know this.  I'll give you a good example: Are you familiar with the term 'temporary protected status', or TPS, right?  So, by statute, the courts are stripped of jurisdiction from over-ruling a presidential determination, or a secretarial determination, on TPS when the Secretary of Homeland Security makes that determination. So, when Secretary Noem terminated TPS for the illegals that Biden flew into the country, when courts stepped in, they were violating explicit language that Congress had enacted saying they [i.e. Article III courts] have no jurisdiction. So, it's not just that the courts are at war with the Executive branch, the courts are at war -- these radical rogue judges -- with the Legislative branch as well, too. ...

Understand -- Article III courts are the normal courts of the federal Judiciary branch: the single superior court [i.e. so-called "THE Supreme Court" (*) ] and the various inferior courts that Congress has, from time to time, established pursuant to Article III.

Understand, what Stephen Miller is discussing here is Congress' power, under Article III, Section 2, to limit, or even strip, the jurisdiction of the federal courts (**) over all but a few specific sorts of cases as explicitly enumerated in Article III, Section 2.

Understand -- the "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government" dogma that we all were taught in high school civics class is not only a myth, but a lie, and a pernicious lie at that. The lie was invented by lawyers/judges (***) to disguise their imperialistic power-grab over the other branches, and indeed, over our very lives.

So, since the three branches of the federal government are not "co-equal", where does that leave us? It leaves us where we always were: the three branches each have explicitly enumerated powers -- and no powers not explicitly enumerated -- and the Congress is the "supreme" branch.  That the congresscritters do not want to do their jobs is another matter ... and, in the end, the fault lies with the electorate for allowing them to shirk their duty.

(*) As I have pointed out repeatedly, Article III of the US Constitution does not create "THE Supreme Court". Rather, it establishes "one supreme Court" -- one highest-level or superior court -- and as many inferior courts as Congress may decide to create.

This is the text of Article III, Section 1 (emphasis added ):

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

(**) This is the relevant text of Article III, Section 2"

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

(***) Understand -- No matter the legal system, the lawyers of that system *always* eventually seek to corrupt the law to make it serve their own interests. Also remember -- judges are just lawyers who dress funny.

Tim Pool: Stephen Miller Says Trump SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING Suspending Habeas Corpus

When is a "Refugee" not a Refugee?

Isn't this odd --

1) Illegal aliens from Central and South America (and from all across the world, actually) -- from countries which are poor, certainly, but in which people are not being murdered for political reasons -- who, were they actually "refugee", have traversed any number of "safe" countries, in which they were required by "International Law" (such as it is), flood into America ... and the leftists insist that they are "refugees" who *cannot* be sent home.

2) The Trump administration is attempting to allow Afrikaners -- white South Africans who *are* being murdered for racist political reasons, and with the connivance of the South African government -- to *legally* come to America as refugees ... and those same leftists mock their designation as "refugees".

Why, one might get the impression that leftists hate white people as much as they hate America. 

Concerning My Contention that *ALL* Atheists Are Intellectually Dishonest, With Reference to Alex O'Connor

The purpose of this post is to expand upon, or explain in more detail, something I had written on GAB. Basically, the purpose here is to reiterate my own approach to the 'Argument From Reason' and by it to defend my assertion that *all* 'atheists' and 'agnostics' can thereby be known to be intellectually dishonest.

Recently on GAB, I had said in passing that I consider Alex O'Connor -- a smarmy young Englishman to whom many 'village atheists with an ethernet cable (*)' currently look to be the salvation of their anti-rational belief-system, and whom many internet apologists for Christianity foolishly extol for his current (**) winsome approach to asserting that 'God is not' -- to be intellectually dishonest.

Someone later asked: 

I'm curious. I have watched Alex for sometime. What did you find particularly intellectually dishonest about him?

I responded in two parts, the first specifically about Alex O'Connor, and the second quickly outlining why I consider *all* 'atheists' and 'agnostics' to be intellectually dishonest.

Concerning Alex O'Connor, I said:

I'll admit that I *haven't* watched/listened to him all that much -- I have an almost physical reaction of repugnance to him. Even in his more recent/current iteration of winsomeness, as compared to his earlier stridency, he strikes me as aiming to be the next occupant of Dawkins' papal throne.

It's his more recent/current pose of "I'm just asking questions; I really want to see 'evidence' of God, but I just don't see it" that I mark as *doubly* intellectually dishonest (*) -- he's *not* just asking questions, and he's *not* looking for evidence of God: he's demanding answers which are category errors; he's refusing to acknowledge that you can't "find evidence of God" when you're insisting that God is like Zeus.

(*) His initial pugnacious iteration was also intellectually dishonest, but at least it was straight-forward attack-mode.

Concerning 'atheists' and 'agnostics' in general, I said:

My position, though I won't detail it here, is that *all* atheists, including the ones who try to hide behind the 'agnostic' label, are intellectually dishonest (*). The main difference between one atheist and another is how obnoxious or strident one is compared to another.

(*) In a nutshell -- IF God is not, that is, IF atheism/materialism is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN there can be no such things as rational beings, there can be no such activity as logical deduction from premise to conclusion, and there can be no such thing as true knowledge -- including the alleged knowledge that "atheism/materialism is the truth about the nature of reality". BUT, there *are* rational beings, and logical reasoning *is* possible, and true knowledge *does* exist and *can* be known.

Atheists and 'agnostics' -- *all of them* -- are intellectually dishonest precisely *because* they persist in their denial of the reality of God even as that denial logically entails the denial of their own natures as rational beings and free wills (**), able to reason logically and to know truth. AND, the cherry on the top is that most of them pose as paragons of reason and logic, and attempt to denigrate Christians as irrational.

(**) It's a misstatement to say that "we have free will", as though it [i.e. the reality of 'free will'] were analogous to having or not having two feet; rather, we *are* free wills.

==========
==========

So, to expand on the above --

Notwithstanding the title of a post I'd made last February ("There Is a Fourth Metaphysic", which title was in response to an attempt to get around the "Problem of Minds" by splitting the single metaphysic of atheism into three distinct metaphysics), there are two, and only two, logically possible metaphysics: that is, the truth about the nature of reality is encompassed, without remainder, either by "theism" or by atheism ... but atheism is anti-rational and indeed self-refuting, as it logically entails the denial of all manner of things we know to be true of ourselves.

Understand, the fatal flaw in atheism isn't due to materialism -- materialism is simply the primary expression of any atheism which acknowledges the reality of a physical/material world. No, the fatal flaw of atheism is that it denies -- necessarily -- the primacy of mind, and thus of free-will, as a causal explanation for events and state-changes in the world, which leaves mechanistic necessity as the *only* causal explanation for events and state-changes in the world.

To make use of an illustration by the Oxford mathematician John Lennox, if you were to ask me, "Why is that kettle of water boiling?", I might explain the boiling of the water by listing a series of facts of mechanical necessity, starting with the the fire under the kettle.  Or, I might answer, "Because I want a cup of tea". Now, while the mechanical necessity explanation isn't false, so far as it goes, it is quite incomplete: it doesn't get to the *real* reason that the kettle of water is boiling; namely that I freely initiated the series of mechanistic events and state-changes which resulted in the water boiling.

C S Lewis distinguished these two different (though not contradictory) explanations for the cause of the water boiling as cause-and-effect (the fire under the kettle and subsequent physical state-changes) on the one hand, and ground-and-consequent (my effecting of an act of will to initiate the series of  physical state-changes which result in the water boiling) on the other hand.

But, see, the problem for atheism, it's fatal flaw, is that IF atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN my "decision" to initiate that series of mechanistic events and state-changes which resulted in boiling water was itself merely the mechanically necessary result of some prior set of state-changes; that is, under atheism, there are no such things as decisions, as we all intend that term, much less any such thing as free-will.

The two, and only two, logically possible metaphysics -- 

On the one hand, IF "theism" is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN the primal fact about reality is 'Mind' (***). That is, logically prior to anything else, before there are any states or events or state-changes, there is a mind, there is a rational being, there is a Who who freely chooses to act or not to act, who freely creates all else that is, who intends 'this' but not 'that'.

On the other hand, IF atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN the primal fact about reality is 'Not-Mind'. That is, definitionally: however it is that states, and state-changes, initially came to be, they came to be unintentionally, and thus any and all subsequent events and state changes are, and of necessity must be, the mechanistic result of prior events and state-changes. That is, under atheism, this initial unintentionality pervades all reality and for all time: for 'not-mind' cannot yield, cannot become, 'mind'. 

If 'mind' does not exist already at the initial state of the system, then 'mind' cannot be injected into the system at some later stage of events. For, whence comes this 'mind' to inject into the system? On the one hand, if 'mind' was always "just there, somewhere", waiting in the wings, so to speak, to be injected into the system when "needed" as an explanatory force, then one is just playing disingenuous word-games: one is denying the fundamental tenet of atheism while dishonestly asserting that one is not denying it. But on the other hand, if one asserts than 'mind' just "arises" within the system itself from 'not-mind', then one is *also* just playing disingenuous word-games: but in this case, one is asserting that 'mind' and 'not-mind' are the same thing.

Here is the issue: the existence of mechanistically necessary state-changes is compatible with "theism", but the free-and-intentional initiation of novel events and state-changes is utterly incompatible with atheism. 

Thus (as I said above), to assert that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality is simultaneously to assert the denial of all manner of things which one knows to be true of oneself, including, but not limited to: the freedom of one's will; one's ability to engage in logical reasoning; one's ability to discover truth and know that it is truth; the ability to discover that one has erred in one's reasoning and to correct the error and to know that one has indeed corrected the error.

To deny that God is is ultimately to deny that one's own self is. To put it in the form of a bumper-sticker: You are the proof that God is.

And this is why I contend that *all* 'atheists' and 'agnostics' are intellectually dishonest. And I include in that assessment even the likes of Patricia Churchland, who does with one side of her mouth deny the reality of free-will, while with the other side trying to convince people to believe the proposition that they are not free-wills.

==========

==========
(*) 'village atheist with an ethernet cable' is a phrase I have long used to denote and deride the sort of 'atheist' one typically encounters on the internet.

(**) Until just a couple of years ago, Alex O'Connor was as deliberately obnoxious as Richard Darwkins or Stephen Fry, or Christopher Hitchens.

(***) Some 'atheists' try to evade this problem by appealing to some sort of woo-woo, such as 'Panpsychism'. But, as I explain time and again, there is no such thing a 'Mind' unless there is at least one actually existing mind.

A Working 1st-floor Bathroom

(now updated -- click on the photos to see a larger image)

2025/01/04:

My sister, Karen, came over from Indiana for a week to goad me into getting some work done on my house.  One of our projects was getting the downstairs bath operational again.  I still have some detail finish work to do, including re-surfacing the tub. This is what the room looked like as of New Year's Day -- 

This bathroom had been a "junk room" for many years, ever since one winter day when a cold draft coming through gaps in the old dry-stone foundation froze the supply line to the toilet and caused the shut-off valve to disconnect from the line. Fortunately, I was home when it thawed, and so I was able to shut off the water in the basement before too much flooding occurred.

Yes, I used a windowed door for this room -- I wanted more natural light to be able to reach the interior/central hall from which one accesses the foyer, the living room, this bath, the "front room", and the stairway.

You might notice the two rust-stains on the door-jamb to the left (fortunately, they will be hidden under the door-stop trim work).  That is from a massive water-damage event several years ago when the supply-line to one of the sinks in the second-floor master bath froze and burst due to raccoons getting into the lower attic and ripping out a lot of insulation.  I was out of town when it thawed (at the time, I worked a 2+ hour drive from home) -- every room in the house, but two, suffered water damage.

 

EDIT 2025/04/ 12:

The downstairs bath is fully functional and is nearly complete; just a few trim pieces to cut and install, and a bit of the woodwork to stain and finish.

This photo is of the bathtub, refinished both inside and out. The outer refinishing involved striping multiple payers of old, probably lead-based, paint, and then applying primer and enamel paint.  While the directions for the refinishing kit (for the inside) say that that it can be applied with a brush, we found that we got a much better result by using small rollers, and the work went much faster.

I may someday look into finding a more decorative faucet for the tub, but for now this functional one is fine.

As mentioned above, the door into this bathroom is a "french" windowed door.  On the inside is mounted a sheet of plexiglass with a decorative film applied to it. I wish the photo did it justice. I'm really satisfied with how it turned out, especially when the door is viewed from outside the room.

In the corner, behind the door, is a cheap kitchen wall cabinet mounted atop the baseboard, for linens and such.  We continued the wainscoting around the side of the cabinet (thus hiding the "raw" particleboard of which it is constructed ... as I said, it's a cheap cabinet).  I built the cabinet's countertop from strips of oak flooring glued together.

To the right of the above photo, you can just see the edge of one of the two in-the-wall shelving units we built. They're to the same design as the open-shelf spice cabinet I built for the kitchen (as seen below).

 

This photo is from the doorway, toward the outside wall. This bathroom is a roomy 8 feet by 8 feet. My mother, who was wheel-chair bound, was still alive when I first designed the room; I wanted to be sure it would be comfortably usable for a person with limited mobility.

The wainscoting is a PVC-based product which I got from Home Depot.  It's lightweight and waterproof, of course, and can be cut with a simple utility knife. But, the ease of cutting it is also its one drawback -- it can be easily dented/deformed by localized pressure.

This photo of of the door, taken from the hallway. It's a better view of the result, but still doesn't do it justice.

I miss beautiful buildings

The linked page has pictures of the old Richland County OH courthouse and one picture of the older courthouse. Both were beautiful buildings, and both are long since demolished.

The current county courthouse is an ugly modern monstrosity, built in 1968. Similarly, the current Mansfield city hall is also an ugly modernist thing.

Come to think of it, Anderson IN, where I lived/worked straight out of college (1980-1982), had also replaced both the beautiful old court house, which was of a similar style to this one, and the old city hall with hideous modern buildings. In the case of the courthouse, it was already falling apart -- there were barricades all around the building, with covered walkways to the major entrances, to protect passers-by from bricks falling from the facade.

My hometown of South Bend IN converted the two most recent "old" courthouses to other uses, rather than demolishing them.

THE OLD RICHLAND COUNTY COURT HOUSE

Even Infinite Buckeroos Will Not Feed Us

In the linked video, Dan Tubb of LotusEaters.com discusses "Modern Monetary Theory", the insane socialistic hyper-Keynesian "economic theory" by which our rulers are destroying us.

My comment/response --

The *point* of an economy is not to "add value", but rather to generate/create wealth. Certainly, "adding value" ... well, adds value. But, if there is not an underlying and robust generation of wealth to which to "add value", then everyone dies, no matter how much "value" is being added as we all die. In the "buckeroo" pseudo-economy, no wealth at all is being generated; that "economy" is nothing more than an accounting trick. Moreover, in its interface with the real economy, it almost certainly destroys wealth, rather than creating it. For, of a certainly, whatever tasks the students do at the hospital to earn the buckeroos will be either pointless waste-of-time make-work, or something that regular employees are already being paid to do. While the "work" the students perform to earn those buckeroos may potentially be "useful" (or not), that work's relationship to the real economy of wealth-creation is no different than if they were made to dig holes one day, and fill them in the next. Now, hospitals are certainly nice things to have, and a well-run hospital "adds value" to its community. BUT, hospitals do not generate wealth; rather, they consume wealth. In that regard, hospitals are luxuries: we cannot have hospitals unless and until we have an underlying economy producing enough excess wealth to support siphoning off enough wealth to fund the hospitals.

Dan Tubb, LotusEaters: The Nonsensical Economic Theory That Affects Your Life

It's an odd world

What an odd world we find yourselves in.

According to many judges (*), including those on the highest court, we mere US citizens do not "have standing" to petition the courts (i.e. said judges) to order that the laws be faithfully enforced by the persons whose sworn duty it is to faithfully enforce the laws. BUT, according to that some gaggle sort of judges, lawyers and NGOs (often, or even exclusively, funded by monies forcefully extracted from us citizens), DO "have standing" to petition the courts (i.e. other lawyers, the ones who dress funny) to FORBID the faithful enforcement of the law.

(*) And remember, judges are just lawyers (**) who dress funny.

(**) Further remember: No matter the legal system, the lawyers of that system will *always* attempt to corrupt it to serve their own interests.

More on "Big Organ Lost One"

I have written about this case before, back in October, 2024.

The news item linked below doesn't claim such, but an early statement in the piece *might* be understood as implying that the reason the man was declared to be "brain dead" in the first place was due to malpractice.

Understand this -- (the fact isn't examined as in depth as it deserves) some of the higher ups in the Donation-Industrial Complex were insistent upon chopping this man for parts, even after it was undeniable that he was not dead.

Understand this -- the *reason* that they now sedate the "corpses" from whom they harvest organs is because they *know* that there is a strong possibility that those people are not actually dead; there have been *many* cases, all across the world, in which "dead" people "woke up" as the surgeons were cutting into them. And thus, they now sedate the "dead" people before cutting into them.

Understand this -- once you know this truth about vital organ transplant (*), it is immoral -- it is damning of your immortal soul -- to take part, in any way, in this industry. It is better to die than to have the heart transplanted into your chest of a man who was murdered to make that heart available.

(*) The one exception I can think of would be to receive a "living donation" of a kidney.

Kentucky family demands answers after organs nearly taken from living man: 'Living nightmare'

On the "Divine Feminine"

I'm linking to the Matt Walsh video as I indend a comment sparked by the title (though, do listen to the video): "Katy Perry Claims Her Trip To Space Connected Her To The “Divine Feminine”?!"

My comment --

For all the stupid things one might honestly fault men for doing, and for all the horrible things that man-hating feminists falsely accuse men of doing, I have *never* heard a man refer to the "Divine Masculine".

Why, it's almost as though for all our alleged phallo-centrism, we men don't worship our dicks nearly to the degree that feminists worship their pussies. And do understand: that is precisely what the term "Divine Feminine" is all about.

Matt Walsh: Katy Perry Claims Her Trip To Space Connected Her To The “Divine Feminine”?!

Q: When Are Your Children Not Your Children?

A: When a passel of God-damned government bureaucrats decide that they have a greater vested interest in the welfare of your own children than you do.

It *appears* that the "neglect" of which government bureaucrats accuse these parents is the rational decision to forego the battery of so-called vaccinations that the "health professionals" -- remember them? the very people who lied to us in various ways, and are still lying to us to this day, about Covid-1984? -- insist infants be subjected to.

And so, since the *parents* of these children made the decision -- as is their right -- to remove their children from the potential clutches of the damned government bureaucrats, the bureaucrats are accusing the PARENTS OF KIDNAPPING THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

Massachusetts Couple Accused of Kidnapping Their Own Five Children from State Custody

The Absurdity of "Judicial Review"

The point, THE WHOLE POINT, of the US Constitution is to delineate the powers of the federal government and to limit its ability to interfere in our lives. But, of course, since governments are just men, and since all men are sinners, all governments seek continually to increase the monies they extract from their subjects and to increase their ability to interfere in the lives of their subjects. That is, all government is forever and always the enemy of the liberty of the people. Government is necessary, but it it nonetheless an evil; and that must never be forgotten.

This is why the very concept of "the federal courts interpret the Constitution" is absurd; doubly so: It's absurd because to "interpret" the Constitution JUST IS to change its meaning; and it's absurd because the courts are themselves agents of "the government."

The US Constitution is a compact, an agreement, between the States and The People; the US federal government is created by the Constitution and is the CREATURE of the States and of The People. Consider how absurd it would be if a number of persons agreed amongst themselves to create a corporation, and drew up its charter, its rules of operation ... and then the *agents* of that corporation asserted that *they* have the power to "interpret" that charter over and against the principals of the corporation.

This is the text of the linked item:

"The year was 1942, and an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn was growing wheat on his own property and feeding it to his own animals. This wasn’t some big commercial operation—Roscoe was just trying to make a living, keep his farm running, and feed his livestock. But the federal government had other ideas.

See, back then, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 set quotas on how much wheat farmers could grow, all in the name of stabilizing prices during the Great Depression and World War II. Roscoe, though, grew more than his allotted amount—not to sell, mind you, but just for his own use.

The feds caught wind of this and fined him. Roscoe fought back, arguing that what he did on his own land, for his own consumption, wasn’t their business.

The case climbed all the way up to the Supreme Court: Wickard v. Filburn. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled against him. They said that even though Roscoe’s wheat never left his farm, it still affected interstate commerce. How? Because by growing his own, he wasn’t buying wheat on the market, which impacted supply and demand nationwide.

It was a stretch, but the Court bought it, expanding the Commerce Clause to give the government power over pretty much anything that might touch the economy, even indirectly.

Roscoe paid the fine, and life went on, but that ruling stuck. It’s been a cornerstone for federal overreach ever since—everything from regulating backyard gardens to mandating health insurance.

So when you’re mad about the Supreme Court, just remember: they’ve been finding ways to justify big government for over 80 years. Roscoe’s wheat didn’t stand a chance, and neither do most of us when they set their minds to it."

https://gab.com/americaneducationfm/posts/114206273415144633

What Is Your Citizenship Worth?

Will American citizens *ever* get it into their heads that the Democratic Party is the sworn enemy of the American People and of our Republic? Or are too many Americans content to vote against the interests of their children and grandchildren, so long as they are told that "the rich" are being made to suffer?

Will black American citizens *ever* get it into their heads that the Democratic Party *despises* them and is *using* them as a cats paw? Or are too many black Americans content to cut off their noses to spite their faces, so long as "the white man" is made to suffer?

"It's Un-American" - 19 Democratic State AGs Sue To Stop Trump Blocking Non-Citizen Voting

Doom, All the Way Down

This -- adults brow-beating 12/13 year-old girls to change clothes in front of a boy -- is the world that *women* demanded. And it will not be solved until *women* abandon feminism, root and branch.

By the way, the late Phyllis Schlafly -- remember her -- *warned* us that if the ERA were ratified, that *this*, and worse, would be among the inevitable results. Thanks in large part to Mrs Schlafly, the ERA wasn't ratified ... but the leftists figured out how to use the "Civil Rights Act of 1964", coupled with judicial imperial over-reach, and the craven acquiescence of elected officials, to achieve the same vile goals.

Things are only going to get worse unless *women* reject feminism, and that must include refusing to vote for *any* Democrat or *any* RINO. And, it most assuredly means abandoning the immoral claim that women have a right to murder their babies.

Matt Walsh: Mom Reveals HORRIFYING Details Of Woke Middle School Corruption

Where Are All the Democrats, So Quick to Stir the Pot At Any Other Time?

I wasn't able to speak for hours when my father died. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to speak after losing a child in such a horrible and senseless manner.

The answer to the question posed in the video's title is: No. And we all know it, and we all know why, and we all know how things would have gone were the races reversed. And we all know the why of that: Democratic Party racist hypocrisy.

Where is B Hussein "If I Had a Son" Obama? Where is Ben "Can I make It Worse?" Crump? Where is Elie "Q-Tip" Misstal? Where is Al "Oddly Slim of Late" Sharpton? Where is Joy "Less" Reid? Where is Don "Wanna Snif?" LeMon? Where is Cory "Spartacus" Booker? Where is Keith "Tanktop (if you know, you know)" Ellison? Where is Jasmine "Ratchet" Crockett? Where is Hakeem "Dimestore Obama" Jeffries? Where is Ayanna Pressley? Where is Kamala "Middle Class" Harris? Where is Maxine "Mad Max" Waters?

Where is Chuck "We Will Win! We Will Win!" Schumer? Where is Nancy "I Got Mine" Peolsi? Where is Adam "Lying Pencilneck" Schiff? Where is Tim "Timpon" Walz?

Surely, these notables (and so many others I haven't named) have some Words of Wisdom to share with us!

Quartering: Will Cities Burn For Him? White Track Star SNUFFED Out By Thug Over Sitting In The Wrong Seat

Fox: ‘HUG YOUR BABIES TIGHT’: Grieving mother, brother of murdered teen speak out

Further Doom

This is why America is doomed -- men don't have the balls to say "No" to the lies, intellectual dishonesty, and ever-escalating demands for special treatment -- disguised as "equality" -- of women.

This isn't about "rights for parents in Congress" -- whatever the Hell that is supposed to mean. These bitches and bastards were not elected to Congress to "be parents", they were elected to SHOW UP TO WORK, to represent the people of their district in Congress. And they don't want to do that; rather, they want to *expand* Nancy Pelosi's corrupt "proxy voting" scheme.

As one person said -- "$150,000 a year and you can't afford a babysitter? Figure it out or resign."

Speaker Johnson suffers defeat in his push to block new parents in U.S. House from proxy voting

Here is a Democratic Party congresscritter @16:00 mark whinging about her desire to subvert-and-evade her duties as a US Representative, but still get paid --

Serious people -- adults -- don't even *use* the words 'mom' and 'dad' in a serious public setting, much less apply those words to themselves. Those words are for the familial setting, and especially when speaking to children.

GOP Reps DEFECT, Joins Democrats To BLOCK TRUMP, Want SPECIAL Rules For Women, GO FULL WOKE

Congresscritters ... and Public Accusations, While Shielded From Liability

Back in February (of 2025), Congresscritter Nancy Mace (R-Feminism) used -- misused -- her congressional immunity from legal liability to accuse four men of some terrible crimes -- 

Nancy Mace Makes EXPLOSIVE Sexual Assault, Voyeurism Allegations On House Floor

Apparently, she has a habit of accusing people (which is to say, men) of various foul deeds. She accused a fifth man of assaulting her during an event at the Capitol last year. On Tuesday (2025/04/01), federal prosecutors moved to drop charges against this man: Charges dropped against Illinois man accused of assault by Rep. Nancy Mace

Note this quote from the linked article:

Several eyewitnesses disputed Mace’s characterization of the Dec. 10 incident, suggesting it looked like a “normal handshake.”

A few days ago, I had seen a YouTube video which purported to show the video of the encounter.  IF that video was indeed a record of the full encounter, then I have to agree with the above quote.

Apparently, this most recently accused man is a "trans-rights activist" -- which means that he is as despicable as she is. But, this intellectually dishonest game of "Won't You Strong Brave Men Protect Poor Little Me No Matter What Accusation I Make?" played by feminists, in general, and she, in particular, must be called out, and it must stop.

Non-Familial Males ... and Miscarriages

During the time when the commies had Forced The Shutting Down Of The World's Economy, I saw a mainstream news article stating that gynecologists/pediatricians were reporting a noticeable decrease in miscarriages.

This immediately brought to mind the scientific observation that when pregnant mice are exposed to "strange" males, their incidences of spontaneous abortion increases.

And, this lead me to wonder whether the *reason* that almost all ancient civilizations segregated their wives from most contact with non-familial males was precisely because there is a similar, albeit weaker, physiological effect in humans as in mice to cause spontaneous abortions upon contact with "strange" males.

This question will never be studied. of course -- feminism will not allow the question to be asked, nor an honest answer to be given.

Why America Is Doomed

These sorts of abominations (as see the linked 'X' post) sprout from the anti-Constitutional Civil Rights Act of 1964, and they are rooted in the 17th (Popular Election of Senators) and 19th (Female Suffrage) Amendments. That the federal government is killing the nation via taxation and reckless deficit spending is rooted in the 16th (Income Tax / Direct Taxation of the People) Amendment.

And this is why America is doomed:

1) Almost no American man is willing to acknowledge that Female Suffrage was a civilization-ending mistake, lest women whine at him;

2) Almost no "conservatives" are willing to acknowledge that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is fatally flawed, and that it is the basis by which the commies are undermining our liberties (and very much including the liberties of black Americans), lest the communists call them racist.

=====

LAWFARE: An Obama-appointed judge has blocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's mandate, which required all U.S. soldiers to meet uniform physical fitness standards, ruling that it discriminates against those who are not physically fit.

=====

Post on 'X'

Is This Really the "Win" It's Portrayed As Being?

According to the CDC (see link below), before the US chickenpox vaccination program started in 1995, there were:

4,000,000 cases annually;

50 to 150 deaths annually, with half being children;

So, if we use the high number (as they want us to fixate on), that is 1 death per @ 26,666 cases (i.e. 4M / 150)

In contrast, since widespread use of the chickenpox vaccine, there have been:

"fewer than 150,000" cases annually;

"fewer than 30" deaths annually;

That is, that is 1 death per @ 5,000 cases (i.e. 150K / 30)

Now, for persons who might have been among the 20-120 "extra" deaths per year without the vaccine, that's certainly good news. However, as a *percentage* of cases, the death-toll is far worse since the vaccine roll-out.

And that's not counting whatever damage that the vaccine may do to the developing bodies and brains of very small children ... and which damage they most certainly hide from us.

This is ONE MORE EXAMPLE of why vaccine mandates are EVIL and sinful/immoral: leave the decision to vaxx or not in the hands of the parents, and give them *real* information so they can make informed decisions.

CDC: Chickenpox Vaccine Saves Lives Infographic

Won't Someone Please Think of the ... Bees?

The Earth's magnetic field is decreasing exponentially, as shown by measurements going back 150 years or more. If I recall correctly, at the measured rate of decay, Earth will have no magnetic field at all in another 2000 years. Which would be very bad news indeed for all living things on Earth.

However, according to Standard (i.e. Uniformitarian) Science the Earth's magnetic field has reversed polarity -- that is, the magnetic field had collapsed or vanished and then reestablished itself but with opposite polarity to the previous -- many times over many millions of years. If this is so, then bees. and all other species which rely upon the magnetic field for navigation, have lived through magnetic "irregularities" many times in their histories.

So, it would seem that -- according to 'Science!' (*) -- there is really nothing to be concerned about: the bees have been through far worse than this article discusses.

But, I have long wondered -- what if 'Science!' is wrong? What if we are not living through a periodic Magnetic Pole Reversal? What if:

1) Earth is simply "winding down", as it was never intended to go on and on for millions of years?

2) Earth isn't "winding down", but rather, we ourselves are accidentally *causing* the measured weakening of the magnetic field due to generation and transmission of electricity?

Also, what if 'Science!' is right, and we *are* going into a period of Magnetic Pole Reversal? Do you *really* think that our electronics-dependent civilization can survive that? A collapse of the magnetic field would wreak world-wide havoc, and at least many millions would die in the immediate aftermath. If the planet were without a magnetic field for any length of time, billions would die.

But now, ask yourself this: Why do the Climate Cultists hypocritically fixate on ever-more disastrous, yet even-more future-offset, "predictions" of Coming Catastrophe Just Around The Corner, and yet totally ignore something that *can* be measured and which *will* be world-wide catastrophe should it happen? The answer is obvious -- they can't see how either to monetize this looming disaster or to use it as an excuse to arrogate to themselves the power of life and death over other people's lives.

(*) 'Science!' is how I refer to scientism, or worship of "science" and scientists

GUIDED BY EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD, BEES SUFFER MYSTERIOUS CATASTROPHIC LOSS

Have I Changed, Really?

 Recently, I posted a semi-meme on FascistBook, which said this: 

"Democrats, please clam down. Musk can't become President. Unless ... he can find the guy who made Obama's birth certificate."

A few days later, a woman I had known in college (i.e. 45+ years ago), made this comment, attached to the above:

"Troy, what has happened to you? The guy I knew in college wasn't full of spite and meanness. Do you really think this is helping anything? I guess "love your neighbor as yourself" is just a nice little phrase reserved for Sunday school. It's crap like this that is driving young people away from the church, and vitriol never won a single soul."

Now, this is the same foolish and absurd woman who, in 2016 (*), I think, though it might have been in 2220 (**), said something on FascistBook to the effect that she couldn't fathom how people who call themselves Christian could even consider voting for the man who said the sort of things about women that he had said.  She was referring the the "leaked" "Access Hollywood" tape, in which Trump had crudely -- but accurately -- stated a basic truth about women in general, and certainly about the sort of women who gravitate to the circles in which he moves.

This foolish and absurd woman accuses me of being "full of spite and meanness", in apparent contrast to what she imagines I was like 45+ years ago.   I am, in fact, a very kind man, as I always have been ... but I no longer hold my tongue in the presence of lies and intellectual dishonesty, as I did when I was a conflict-avoidant youth.  You could say, I have grown into myself.

But, so too has this foolish and absurd woman grown into herself. You see, way back in 1979 or 1980, I noted to myself the trajectory she was on.  One spring day before I graduated (so, probably 1980) both Debra and I happened to be hanging out in her mother's office (oh, that poor woman!), and she opined about how it was the moral duty of mankind to protect and preserve every living species.  I said nothing to the contrary, because as a boy and young man I was extremely conflict-avoidant, but I thought to myself, "I can think of any number of species I'd eradicate in an instant, if I could."

"It's crap like this that is driving young people away from the church, and vitriol never won a single soul."

This foolish and absurd woman isn't concerned with saving souls -- she supports the Party of Baby-Murder, she supports the Party of Enforced Sexual Perversity, she supports the Party of Sexual Mutilation of Children, she supports the Party of Destroying the Working-Class (****), she supports the Hate America First Party.  I could go on, but you get the picture -- she supports the Party of The Lie; everything follows from The Lie.

In truth, it's only "crap like this" -- speaking the truth, no matter how loudly the leftists shriek -- which has any chance of drawing young people to Christ.

No, it's not me being "full of spite and meanness", to which this foolish and absurd woman objects, but rather that I mock the lies with which she chooses to swaddle her mind.

(*) when the presidential choice was between Trump (a '90s Democrat; a sort-of "pro-life" (***) lite adulterer) and Hillary Clinton (a Current Year Democrat, a rabid promoter of abortion, and an enthusiastic participant in the destroying of women who brought credible accusations of sexual assault/abuse against her husband).  As I've said a time or two, I voted for neither of them; I voted for the Constitution Party, a party whose platform was unashamedly Christian.  

What do you think are the odds that oh-so-Christianly-concerned Debra did likewise?  No, she voted for the Democratic Party, the same one she's trying to shame me for opposing.

(**) when the presidential choice was between Trump (a '90s Democrat; a sort-of "pro-life" (***) lite adulterer) and Joe Biden (a very pro-abortion adulterer, credibly accused of rape, who fondled women and children right out in public view, with the cameras running)

(***) As I've said before, I despise the label "pro-life": it's the sort of pablum served up by 5th Avenue to appeal to weak-minded women (and womanly men). I'm not "pro-life", I'm anti-murder.

(****) Her father was a university instructor, and I believe her husband is also; that is, she has lived most of her life in the sort of social and intellectual cocoon in which it doesn't affect you, personally, if your ideas and ideology are for shit.

===========
Edit:
By the way, I'm a bit mystified as to how she even saw that I'd posted the original semi-meme. I mean, it's not as though we are "friends" on FascistBook.

Also, have you ever noticed that these tone-police sorts are always such flaming hypocrites?