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?

A "Canning Kitchen" in the Basement

 Ah. I did have a photo of the "canning kitchen" I built in the basement a couple of years ago.

I had bought these cabinets (and more I've not used yet) from a neighbor a few years ago, as I couldn't bear the thought of them sitting out in the rain and being ruined. Someone made these cabinets by hand from quality plywood, possibly as long ago as the 1950s, and certainly before the end of the 1970s. They're far better quality than anything regular people can afford these days.

I'd been thinking for some time that it would be nice to have a "canning kitchen" in the basement. So, after I replaced the kitchen cooktop, I decided that rather than tossing the old one, I'd use it and these cabinets to make a kitchen in the basement.

It has occurred to me that this "spare" kitchen is nicer than any kitchen my mother ever had.

 

 

 

 

Exploding the Myth of "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government"

We all were taught in high school civic class that the US Constitution establishes "three co-equal branches of government".  This is a myth - it is both a lie and a pernicious lie.  It is a lie, because it is not true. It is a pernicious lie, because it is actually and intentionally a cover for the unconstitutional imperial over-reach of the judicial supremacists.

I have long argued that Article III (Section 2) of the US Constitution makes it clear that the Congress has the general power to limit the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the highest-level court (you know, the one that judicial supremacists have trained us to think of as "THE Supreme Court")

I have long known that there are federal statues in which the Congress explicitly states that the courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate certain maters.  But, as I knew no way that I could find an example of such a statute, I have not previously made reference to Congress exercising that power.  However, seeming by chance, in reference to a recent example of judicial imperial over-reach by a "activist judge", the YouTuber Tim Pool real aloud a section of such a statue (see the last link, to the YouTube video). And so, having an example of the Congress exercising this power, I bring it to Gentle Reader's attention.

Below, I have quoted actual existing federal law: Section 221 (sub-sections  h and i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Notice that sub-section (h) explicitly establishes that no alien has a right to enter the US, even if a visa has been issued him.  

Notice that sub-section (i) gives the Executive branch discretionary authority to revoke and invalidate any alien's visa or other such documents and explicitly states that "There shall be no means of judicial review ... of a revocation under this subsection, except ..."

Understand this:

1) The "three co-equal branches of government" myth we were taught is a lie;

1a) In fact, the Legislative branch is supreme, notwithstanding that all three branches have powers into which the other two may not intrude;

2) The mere lower-court judge who has decreed that the Executive may not immediately deport a certain foreign agitator is violating the explicit language of this statute and is attempting, as "activist judges" always do, to set himself above both the Legislative and the Executive branches, and ultimately above the Constitution itself.

Section 221(H,I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(h) Nonadmission upon arrival

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to entitle any alien, to whom a visa or other documentation has been issued, to be admitted the United States, if, upon arrival at a port of entry in the United States, he is found to be inadmissible under this chapter, or any other provision of law. The substance of this subsection shall appear upon every visa application.

(i) Revocation of visas or documents

After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance: Provided, That carriers or transportation companies, and masters, commanding officers, agents, owners, charterers, or consignees, shall not be penalized under section 1323(b) of this title for action taken in reliance on such visas or other documentation, unless they received due notice of such revocation prior to the alien's embarkation. There shall be no means of judicial review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.

Tim Pool, reading from Federal Statue -- Section 221(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act --  (@8:10 mark)

Putin's Nukes ... and Appeasement

Concerning the fear-mongering and spirit of appeasement toward Putin based on Russia's nuclear stockpile and Putin's continuing threats to use them --

Why do you imagine/assume that Russia is capable of nuking *anyone*? Considering the atrocious maintenance of their conventional arms, does it really make rational sense that they did any better with the more expensive and more technical maintenance required for the nukes?

Assume that the Russian military have somehow managed to maintain 3/4 of their nukes in operational order. That's still a lot of nukes ... and thus really scary, right?

Well, maybe. WHICH 3/4 are operational? Unless the decision to let 1/4 become dudes was intentional, the Russian generals have no idea which ones are not dudes.

But, which is more likely -- that the Russian government intentionally scaled down maintenance to a select minority of the USSR's nukes, or that the Russian government *assumed* that the resources allocated to maintaining the entire stockpile were thus spent without corrupt "diversions" into the bank accounts of high-level officials?  That is, how likely is it that the corruption rampant in their conventional military is not also rampant on the nuclear side?

Now, we shouldn't be caviler about Putin's threats to use nukes, but neither should we cower or appease.

American Christianity ... and Current Year

When I hopped in the car to drive to the grocery store, I turned on the radio. It was tuned to a local "Christian" station, and the song linked below was playing.

This song is a perfect example of what is wrong with "Christianity" in present-day America. And, incidentally, if you understand what is wrong with this song, you may get a glimpse of why so many men won't go to church -- most churches in modern America are not preaching Life to the dying, but rather are aimed at endorsing the emotionalism of, and flattering the solipsism of, junior-high girls.

Listen to the words of this song, analyze the message being taught via this song -- whose ever gospel is bring preached, it isn't the Gospel of Christ.

Megan Woods - The Truth (Official Music Video)

Mossad ... and Equal Measures

You will see people asserting, with great pretense of knowledge, that Jeffery Epstein was a Mossad "asset", and that his criminal and immoral activities were done in furtherance of the interests of the State of Israel and in contradistinction to the interests of America.

Maybe this is so, I don't know either way. But, I *do* know, as a matter of reason, that Epstein could not have done what he did, nor for as long as he did, without the active protection of *American* "intelligence services".

So, here is my point -- when you see people blaming *Israel* for Epstein, and before any real evidence is in, but excusing America on the grounds that the CIA has "gone rogue", you can be assured that you are dealing with a Jew-hater, not a seeker of truth. And certainly not a Christian, for God requires us to judge with the same measure.

EDIT (2025/03/04):

Douglas Wilson: So Jeffrey Epstein Was a Jew . . .

Trump ... and His Ego

Look, I despise this corrupt little Ukrainian Ogre more than I can express. But, Trump is wrong (**) here (@ 3:20 mark in the first video) -- and the foolish Americans who are cheering Trump's behavior and/or accusing the little Ogre of threatening the US are ... well, fools (*).

Also, it's *really* rich of Trump ("This war would never have started had I been in office") to say to the Ogrette, "You don't know that". Hell! Anyone who knows anything about human beings "knows that".

The Buy-den maladministration *intentionally* gave Ukraine just enough military aid to drag out the war -- and to open up the sluice-gates of graft and corruption -- but not enough to win it. But now, rather than cleaning up the graft and corruption, and giving Ukraine the necessary aid, the Trump administration has decided to ratify the Putin regime's aggression ... and the end of the "post-war world order". The future is going to be bloody and ugly.

Maybe it already is too late for Ukraine ... but that case hasn't been made.

On the one hand, Trump is just doing what the fickle/bored American populace wants him to do. On the other, he *claims* to be a leader.

But, we all will pay a price for it, just as the Orge was trying to warn.

When the bill for this farce comes due, not one of the fools now cheering and laughing at Zelensky's humiliation is going to admit his own culpability in the horror then unleashed on us.

(*) 'fool' doesn't mean 'stupid', it means to behave *as though* one were stupid.  To call someone a 'fool' is to make a moral judgement about that person

(**) EDIT (2025/0303): At the time I saw the linked video and wrote this post, I hadn't seen what preceded Trump's reaction -- shame on me for falling for MSM selective "reporting".  Good night, but the nasty little Ogre was disrespectful!  Now, it's still true that Trump misinterpreted the Ogre's particular statement at that moment, but it's also true that by that point Trump was addressing the Ogre's performance of the entire past several minutes.

EDIT (2025/03/02): Here is a comment I saw elsewhere; I can agree with this --

"Zelensky essentially tried to guilt-trip Trump into taking the blame for what Obama and Biden did (or didn't do) in the past. Imagine trying to negotiate with this kind of attitude. Trump and Vance were having none of it."

DeVoryDarkins: Zelenskyy KICKED OUT of the White House after shouting match erupts

History Debumked: Why President Trump is determined to abandon Ukraine, and even withdraw from NATO

Commies ... and "Christian Nationalism"

Someone whom I have known for most of my life sent me a video clip of an advertisement for the leftist mockumentary "God and Country" with the assessment "ominous".  Below is my response; pray that it reaches his heart.
=====
I watched the clip, and my previous response was based on only what I heard the commie pretending to be a Christian say.  However, I had no idea what you thought is "ominous".  

But, after googling "God and Country", I think I understand -- you watch too much MSDNC, and they have you in a tizzy over something they are calling "Christian Nationalism" (*).  To put it another way, they have you in a tizzy over ... me.

If you'd care to *learn* something about what "Christian Nationalists" *really* say and aim for, might I suggest paying attention to Douglas Wilson.  He's a Calvinist and a pedobaptist, both of which I believe to be erroneous, but other than that, he's sound. 

"Blog & Mablog" is him reading the text of posts he writes for his "old-fashioned" written blog (also called "Blog and Mablog") -- YouTube search "Blog and Mablog"

"Cannon Press" is more a podcast, with guests and so forth -- Cannon Press (YouTube)

Also, Voddie Baucham is in the "Christian Nationalism" orbit -- Voddie Baucham SPEAKS UP About Trump, Wokeism, Growing Up Fatherless

(*) As best I understand it, it was the leftists/atheists who came up with the term "Christian Nationalism" -- both of which are boo-words to commies, and so doubly scary when paired -- and the people whom they were seeking to smear thereby decided that one name is as good as another, and so adopted it.

====== 

EDIT (2025/03/13): 

James Talarico (whom I'd never heard of until now); "Christian Nationalists have a Heart Full of Hate"

Douglas Wilson (@ 4:13 mark): "We will look over the fact that we have an elected representative, in a pulpit, talking about doctrine; telling us what we should and shouldn't do. This is just a variant form of 'Christian Nationalism'.  He wants to be a 'Christian Nationalist', it's just that his idea of Christianity is all screwed up."

I would phrase that last sentence as: "He wants to impose *his* idea of 'Christian Nationalist' on the rest of us, but his idea of Christianity is all screwed up."

"Christian Nationalists have a Heart Full of Hate" | Doug Reacts to James Talarico

Oh SNAP! Yes, the Food Stamps program is corrupt

At the linked video timestamp, Matt Walsh is talking about the food stamp program, and specifically the recent Trump administration proposal to no longer allow junk food to be purchased with food stamps.  I'll bet you didn't know, Mr/Mrs Taxpayer, that *you* were being forced to pay for the junk food of "poor" people.

Here is a comment left below the video; it's utterly credible to me --
===

I’m a Veteran, disabled and a SNAP recipient. I clip cyber coupons and pay close attention to sales to stretch my SNAP allotments. I no longer have full use of my arms and hands and can’t stand up unassisted. I can purchase all of the candy, cakes and sodas as I desire but I can’t purchase a Rotisserie chicken because it’s cooked.
===

Here is another comment, and it accords with my experience delivering pizzas after I retired --

====

Matt, I do DoorDash on the side while I’m working towards my housing inspector license, and the overwhelming majority of the orders are coming in from housing projects and just the most dilapidated trailers in West Virginia that you can imagine. I decided to look it up today into my shock and horror found out that DoorDash does except snap and EBT cards as forms of payment. It’s not as if these people are ordering from the grocery store and having me deliver them a rotisserie chicken and bags of vegetables. I am delivering to them KFC or Pizza Hut and just about every type of crap food you can imagine. I feel more like a drug dealer than a food delivery driver.

====

And here is a personal anecdote from me --

As I may have mentioned a time or two, for about a year and a half (until I couldn't take any more of the Covid-19[84] bullshit) after I retired from IT, I took a low-paying job driving a wheel-chair van for a "medical transportation" company.  Most of the trips I made were to take very old, or very fat, wheel-chair bound people to their medical appointments.  

However, depending on which organization or program was paying for the service, some of the people were allowed two (or even more) non-medical trips per month.  So, I also frequently took people to church or to the grocery store.

Now, on some of those grocery store runs, one time for sure, after I had loaded the fellow and his purchase into the van, he called someone to *sell* that person the remainder of his food stamps.  I expect this happened at other times, but I directly overheard it that time.

Girlbossing the Airline Industry… Straight Into the Ground | Ep. 1540

Surrendering to Inflation (i.e "Rehome The Dollar")

According to the internet, US inflation since 1793 is such that the 1793 dollar is worth $31.88 in today's dollars. Or, put the other way, today's dollar is worth $0.031367 in 1793 dollars.

Important Message: Inflation is always and everywhere caused by governments.  The inexorable rise in prices for all goods and services does not cause inflation, but rather is the inescapable effect of inflation. It is the money supply that inflates (i.e. swells), not the prices.  

Governments cause inflation by creating money from nothing.  In prior ages, this was done by diluting the purity of the precious metals coinage, while insisting by deadly force that the populace treat the new coins as having the same monetary value as the old coins. In the modern world, this is done by printing more fiat notes ... or by flipping digital/virtual switches.

The reason that governments cause inflation is that they want to "live above their means" ... and because they control lethal force, they are able to do it. For a time (Hint: inflation eventually undermines, and then destroys, the governments causing it.)

(I know of only one historical exception to inflation being intentionally caused by government. And that is the 17th century inflation in Spain, and eventually all or Europe, caused by the massive and sudden influx of New World gold and silver into the European economy.)

You young'uns won't have experienced this, but at one time, our dimes, quarters and silver dollars were actually made of solid silver.  And, get this: our pennies were actually made of solid copper.  

Ah, the good old days! But, now to the point of this post.

It's in the news recently that the DOGE team are recommending cessation of minting pennies, as now it costs more than two cents to mint each cent.  This sort of recommendation is not new: it has periodically been floated for most of my adult life. The reason that the penny is no longer made of copper was to put this day off, to "kick the can down the road."

Because -- due to the nature of governments -- inflation is inexorable, it is inevitable that all US coinage will eventually be eliminated.  And, truth be understood, the world-wide push by the globalists to implement CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is aimed at eliminating all physical money... and, importantly, at better controlling the tax milch-cows.

But, I have a radically different suggestion: rather than eliminating the penny (and eventually all the coinage), why not "rehome" the dollar?  Since our US currency is decimal, rather than surrendering to inflation in the typical manner, why not manage the surrender in the opposite direction, by shifting the decimal point?  That is, why not spend 2025 preparing for January 1, 2026 (*), at which time all physical dollar bills and digital dollars will be re-valued as $0.10 in "new" dollars?  The way I envision this, we'll "save the coinage" by maintaining the current nominal value for all then existing coins. 

Yes, this would mean that if someone happened to have coins with a nominal of $1000 lying around the house, those coins would then be worth $10,000 in terms of today's money. But, remember that we have already surrendered to inflation: trying to "solve" the problem is going to be messy, and is going to benefit some people more than others, no matter what we do.  The "typical" way of dealing with inflation always benefits the politically-connected, intentionally.  If my suggestion benefits anyone, it's unintentional/undirected, and is generally a relatively minor benefit ... and mostly will go to the non-rich for a change. 

By the way, Israel did something similar in 1986, but at the ratio of 1000:1, rather than 10:1 as I suggest.

(*) Or, for the symbolic value of it, and to allow more time to prepare, on July 4, 2026.

There Is No "THE Supreme Court"

Sean Davis is off to a good start ... but hasn't yet freed his mind of the judicial supremacy (*) lies we all were taught in civic class.

1) There is no such thing as "THE Supreme Court" --

The Constitution uses the adjectives "supreme" and "inferior"(Note: capitalization as per the Constitution) to distinguish the singular highest-level court from the multiplicity of lower-level courts which the Congress may establish from time to time;

1a) That is, what we mistakenly call "THE Supreme Court" is "supreme" only with respect to the lower/inferior courts;

2) Except for some explicitly enumerated sorts of cases reserved to the high court, the jurisdiction of *all* the federal courts, including the high court, can be expanded, or curtailed, as the Congress sees fit;

2a) Far from establishing "3 co-equal branches of government" (*), the Constitution *actually* establishes the federal courts as creatures of Congress.

(*) The "3 co-equal branches of government" claim is a lie invented by lawyers to disguise their judicial supremacy power-grab.

There is a Fourth Metaphysic

 It's amazing, or at least amusing, the lengths to which people will go to try to hide from God, to avoid admitting: "God is god, and I am not."

Quoting the beginning of the video: "If you look at the three main metaphysical option on the table today, all three of them have a problem. In two of them, that problem is insoluble; in one of them, you can solve it, if you understand time. ..."

So, it seems to me that *his* "solution" to the "hard problem of consciousness" is to assert, "I am God."

Yet, there is at least a fourth "main metaphysical option", which he leaves unmentioned and unexamined, and it doesn't have the problems he needs to solve: it is commonly called "theism", and it is fundamental to Christianity and Judaism. Also, it does not require us to contradict our own direct experience. Under "theism", the "fundamental mind" creates other, distinct minds. Thus, under "theism": you are you and not I; I am I and not you; and neither of us is God.

EDIT:

Understand, there is no such thing as 'consciousness' unless there is at least one actually existing entity which is conscious. That is, there is no such thing as free-floating 'consciousness'.

Moreover, the 'consciousness' which is the "hard problem of consciousness" is *human* consciousness, that is, personhood. Consider: a banana slug is 'conscious', but the consciousness of banana slugs doesn't even begin to explain the reality of persons.

Materialism, Panpsychism and Idealism ALL Have a Problem

A Counterfactual: US Citizenship, according to the Democrats --

An alternate history thought-experiment:

On December 8, 1941, the Empire of Japan invaded and occupied the US territory of Hawaii. During the following months, Japan stationed 100,000 soldiers and sailors in the islands, along with 5,000 Japanese civilian administrators.

At the time of the hard-fought US Liberation of Hawaii on July 4, 1944, there were living in Hawaii:
- 33,000 Japanese POWs;
- 4,000 Japanese civilian former administrators;

- 6,000 dependents of those civilian former administrators;

- including 1,000 who had been born in Hawaii.

According to the logic of the Democrats concerning the 14th Amendment, those 1000 Japanese children born in Hawaii are US citizens, and are not merely US citizens, but are indeed natural born US citizens, and thus eligible to be US President in about 35 years. And, moreover, they and their parents cannot be repatriated to Japan, For, after all, they were born in the de jure territory of the USA, irrespective of the illegality of their mothers being in US territory at the times of their births.

Obviously, this is absurd.

Likewise, the Democrats' assertion about "birthright citizenship" for "anchor babies" is absurd.

"No" to Civil War 2.0

Look, if California Dems want to secede from the Union, and they are able to convince the citizens (and not to be forgotten: the non-citizen voters) to go along with that suicidal move, it is their right to do so, despite the lie we all were taught in civics class since the falsely-named Civil War.

California Dems like to boast that if California were an independent nation-state, they would have the 5th-largest economy in the world. What they overlook is that California's economy is as large as it *precisely* because California is a State in the USA. As an independent nation-state, their economy would quickly contract.

Also -- and I'd bet you that the Dems haven't thought of this -- IF California were to secede from the US ... which is the state's right to do ... THEN the USA no longer has an obligation to send Colorado River water to California. And, without that water, California's economy would collapse.

California Woman Sent to Prison Over Chinese Birth Tourism Scheme

I have written about "Chinese Birth Tourism" (i.e. Communist Chinese "anchor babies") as it relates to natural born citizenship before, noting that the US federal government prosecutes and imprisons persons who organize or facilitate such "birth tourism".  This post will focus on the absurdity of the leftist pretense that "anchor babies" are indeed US citizens.

The linked article reports that a "California woman" and her husband, who had "helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to give birth so that their children would have automatic United States citizenship", were "both convicted of conspiracy and money laundering".  

Obviously -- definitionally -- if the US federal government is prosecuting, convicting, and imprisoning the organizers of "birth tourism" schemes on conspiracy charges, then it is the "birth tourism" itself which is the underlying crime at issue.  I mean, really! Literally everyone knows that only Donald Trump can be prosecuted for "conspiracy" to not commit a crime.

Think about this -- the (pregnant) Chinese women who make use of these (illegal) "birth tourism" schemes are in the US legally when they give birth.  Is giving birth in the US illegal?  Is giving birth in the US when one is not a US citizen illegal?  Obviously, the answer to both questions is a resounding "No".  So then, where is the illegality?  It is in trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thereby benefit oneself in the future). IF -- as the Democrats and other leftists assert -- the 14th Amendment mandates that *all* persons born in US territory (*) are by that mere fact US citizens, irrespective of the citizenship and legal status of the parent(s), THEN prosecuting the persons who facilitate those births is absurd.

As explained below (*), despite the 14th Amendment, until 1924, and even though born in US territory, and even though born to parents who likewise had been born in US territory, most American Indians were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties; to wit: their tribal nations.

Now, IF the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to American Indians or the children of American Indians -- to a class of persons who had for many generations been resident within the territory of the USA -- due to the fact that their parents were not already US citizens, THEN how can the Democrat/leftist assertion that the Constitution automatically confers US citizenship on the child of someone who had crossed the border five minutes ago possibly be true?  It is absurd!

Consider what is more typically meant by the term "anchor baby". There are two classes --

1) Those born to non-citizen parents who are in the US legally. This includes such persons as Barack Obama -- allegedly born in the US, with no real proof given, to a non-citizen father -- and Marco Rubio, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Kamala Harris;

2) Those born to non-citizen parents who are on the US illegally. This is currently the more numerous class, and the more contentious, as the Democrats and other leftists aim to use them to cheapen the value of US citizenship, and hope to use them to cement in permanent leftist control of the US government;

The Democrats and other leftists assert that the US Constitution confers US citizenship on the two classes of persons noted above. And moreover, they assert that the Constitution confers not mere citizenship, but natural born citizenship (which, as Mrs Olson says of Folger's Coffee, is "the richest kind").

But, as the examples of both the prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of those who facilitate "birth tourism", and of the citizenship status of American Indians show, the leftists are wrong. They are, in fact, lying.

If, despite the criminal prosecutions of those who facilitated such "birth tourism" births, the children born in the US to "citizens" of Communist China are indeed US citizens, why does the US government allow their mothers to take them back to China, to a life of slavery in-all-but-name and life-long indoctrination in hatred of America?

Or what? Does the act of trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thus to benefit oneself in the future) become a crime only if one has "conspired" with and paid money to a third party, such that those who "free-lance" it to drop an "anchor baby" get a pass (and get the citizenship)?

=======

(*) I have also mentioned this fact before (though perhaps not in a post on this blog) -- 

After ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and after the US supreme (**) Court's 1898 Kim Wong Ark ruling (which Democrats and leftists love to misrepresent), most American Indians *still* were not US citizens until passage of the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924".

This is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment --

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Notice that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not explicitly deny US citizenship to (most) American Indians.  And yet, they were not extended US citizenship either by the 14th Amendment itself nor by the supreme Court's Kim Wong Ark ruling.

Clearly, the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not mean what the Democrats and other leftists like to assert that it means.  Here is the Wickedpedia article's introductory paragraph on the Act --

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, (43 Stat. 253, enacted June 2, 1924) was an Act of the United States Congress that declared Indigenous persons born within the United States are US citizens. Although the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that any person born in the United States is a citizen, there is an exception for persons not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the federal government. This language was generally taken to mean members of various tribes that were treated as separate sovereignties: they were citizens of their tribal nations.

Attend to this: (most) American Indians -- even if born in US territory and even 56 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment -- were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties.

So, since the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to (most) American Indians, how is it that they became US citizens in 1924 by a mere Act of Congress? By the fact that the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". That is, the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924" is a naturalization law: the US Congress enacted a law stating that all non-citizen American Indians were thenceforth naturalized US citizens, and thus that their (US-born) descendants would be natural born US citizens.

Clearly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus soli' ("right of soil"). That is, it isn't merely the fact of being born on US soil which confers US citizenship. 

Similarly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus sanguinis' ("right of blood"). That is, one is not a US citizen merely because one's parents (note the plural) are US citizens -- it is for this reason that children born overseas to US citizen parents are not accorded US citizenship unless their parent(s) with US citizenship submit requisite paperwork as established by US naturalization law before the child's 18th birthday.

(**) "supreme Court" capitalization as per the US Constitution.

California Woman Sent to Prison Over Chinese Birth Tourism Scheme

EDIT (2025/02/12): Chip Roy Raises Issue Of Birth Tourism During Discussion Of Birthright Citizenship