'Melo' vs Chow

As far as I'm concerned, 14 years old is old enough to face the death penalty for this sort of thing.

Concerning the recent SC case over which the black racists and their leftist puppet-master were freaking-out, wherein 'Rick' Chow was found not guilty of murder in killing the 14-year old black kid whom he said had pointed the gun he was carrying at Chow's son --
We *all* know that the illegally armed 14-year old black kid was trying to screw up his courage to commit armed robbery. in the end, he couldn't (yet) bring himself to do it, so he ran.

Now, certainly, if the Chow men had not pursued the felon-in-waiting, he wouldn't have died in 2023. Though, it is an open question whether he'd still be alive today; whether the realization of what he had attempted to do would have, on its own, "scared him straight", or whether he'd have doubled-down on criminality and gone on to murder some innocent.

Now, also consider this: Karmelo Anthony -- who, from the very start, was *obviously* guilty of murder -- was allowed his freedom, at a vastly reduced bail, in the year between the murder and the trial. On the other hand, 'Rick' Chow -- who had a credible claim of self-defense, and who eventually prevailed at trial -- was forced to rot in jail during the three years between the killing of the junior thug and the "not guilty" verdict.

Why is that? We *all* know why that is.

Gateway Pundit: 14 Year Old Arrested for Armed Robbery on Kids’ Lemonade Stand in Boston

They're calling him 'Melo', but 'mellow' he was not

I wonder -- If some national news organization were to actively treat black-on-black murder not with a yawn, not as a mere local event of no wider significance, but were to report every single one, anywhere in the country, with the same intensity that "the media" treats even the most minor of the actually rare white-on-black crime, would the black racists who refuse to admit the truth about [any number of cases, not limited to the Karmelo Anthony murder case] *finally* shut the hell up about Muh Oppression?

There is currently so much black-on-black *murder* in this country, to say nothing of lesser crimes, that I expect one could run a 24-hour news channel devoted strictly to reporting on the murders and not lack for material to report.

Stop Telling Little Girls "You can be anything you want to be!"

Women should not be cops. No woman should be a cop, but especially short, fat women, who can't even kneel, should not be cops. Once a female cop enters the "situation", the likelihood that someone is going to get shot, and generally unnecessarily, dramatically increases.

For that matter, the male deputy in this situation doesn't appear to be all that fit, either.

The insanity on view in the body-cam footage -- the female deputy's unnecessary shooting of the criminal, and her endangerment of the male deputy's life -- lies ultimately at the feet of the high-level bureaucrats and politicians who care more about their damned DEI spreadsheets, and thus their raises and promotions, than they care about the lives of the citizenry, or of the cops, or of the criminals.

EDIT:

Apparently, the criminal died. While it's true that I have no sympathy for criminals, the fact remains that his death was utterly unnecessary ... and he's dead precisely because the raises and promotions of high-level bureaucrats follow from their DEI spreadsheets.

PS:

The criminal's relatives are going to file a wrongful death suit against Harris County (Texas), and they're going to win a massive pay-out. And who is on the hook for that? As always, the taxpayers, but never the politicians and bureaucrats who are causing the problem in the first place.

PPS (2025/05/30):

To be clear: it appears in the video that the fellow was initially cooperating with the deputies. It appears that he started resisting and fighting when she tried -- recall: short, fat, can't kneel -- and failed to cuff him. It appears that she twisted his arm into an unnatural and painful position, and that that is when he started fighting. It appears that the entire escalation, and his resulting death, is due to her inability to do a job for which no woman is really qualified.

Hodge Twins: Female Cop Just Stands There While Partner Fights Suspect Alone

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.

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?

EDIT (2025/06/06):

The Democrats are now openly/explicitly calling illegal aliens "undocumented citizens". No one who has been paying attention can be surprised at this, as making your citizenship worthless has been their over-riding goal for many decades now.

So, again: "What Is Your Citizenship Worth?"

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

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 . . .

There *IS* a Federal Interest in State Murder Law ... Including Regarding Abortion

 The following is a response I sent to Matt Christiansen, concerning his recent live-stream (which I viewed on YouTube) --
=====
In "MC Live 11/3/24" you argue that the federal government has no jurisdiction/interest in State murder laws.  Of course, in general, you are correct.  However, if a State's law regarding murder is in violation of the 14th Amendment, then the federal government does have an interest.

To use your "ridiculous" example (is it, really?), if a State were to de-criminalize any and all murder, then one might *legally* argue that the federal government has no interest or jurisdiction.  However, if a State were to de-criminalize the murder of blue-eyed persons, while retaining all sanctions against the murders of all other persons, than that is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

Similarly, if abortion is murder -- and it is -- then to de-criminalize the murders of persons who have not yet inhaled atmosphere, while maintaining the sanctions against the murders of those persons who have inhaled atmosphere, is also a direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
=====

Election-pocalypse, RIP Peanut the Squirrel, Biden Wants to Smack MAGA A$$ | MC Live 11/3/24

The problem with "the police"

The problem with "the police" is not "structural racism" or "systematic racism" or "the legacy of slavery" any other Democratic Party lie; the problem with "the police" is that the policing power is being used by *all* levels of government as a revenue-generating scheme. The problem with "the police" is that they are responding, as all humans do, to incentives ... but, the incentives are perverse.


Remove the perverse incentives, that is, take away the ability of government bureaucracies to profit by the fines and penalties they impose, and most of the problems with "the police" will solve themselves.

Here is one way that can be done --

When a citizen is fined by a government entity, the monies -- including "court costs" -- are forwarded to the local government where the citizen lives (*), where the total of those monies is used to reduce the tax burden of *all* citizens subject to that government entity. That is, the monies are not *added* into the budget of the government entity, but rather reduce the amount of the existing budget to be extracted directly from the citizens.

For example, property taxation is almost universal. If a county is scheduled to raise $10 million in property taxes, and the total fines and penalties imposed on the citizens of that county for that year somehow also amounted to $10 million, then no one would have to pay property tax that year, and the county would still have the amount for which it had budgeted.


(*) this is to remove the temptation to live off the backs of out-of-towners.

I finally "offended" the snowflake leftists on FaceBook

A FB friend linked to this article from not-so Great Britain: [Moslem] Parents suffocated girl, 17, with plastic bag for ‘wearing short-sleeved top’

I commented -- "Welll .... I'm kind of torn. On the one hand, Muzzies murder women for the most absurd/petty things. On the other hand, most Western women dress like tramps because they *are* tramps; and they are tramps because most Western men have been brow-beat into believing that they have no right to expect/demand that women in their lives not be tramps."

And that was just too much for the delicate sensibilities of some damned snowflake leftist.

Sovereignty ... or Not!

FrontPage Mag: THE MIGRANT CARAVAN INVASION

In typical leftist fashion, the leftists and Democrats (but I repeat myself) are using these people's *lives* as fodder for their political agendas of:
1) destroying the Trump Administration in the short-term; and,
2) destroying the USA in the longer-term. As they imagine it, they win no matter what happens.

There are really only two possible responses to this invasion, with three possible outcomes, the first two of which are "wins" for the leftists; the leftists and Democrats have convinced themselves that the third possible outcome cannot happen --

1) The Administration huffs and puffs, and the "migrants" call their bluff, and because it was nothing but huffing and puffing, the Administration does nothing to protect and enforce the sovereignty of the USA; the "migrants" continue their invasion.

The upshot of this is that *as a practical matter* the USA ceases to exist as a sovereign state -- a "win" for the leftists -- and, baring a successful War of Independence 2.0 by the American people themselves, we are swamped by further foreign invasion, until we no longer exist as a people.

2) The Administration is serious about protecting and enforcing the sovereignty of the USA, and so uses lethal force to stop this invasion -- killing as many of the invaders as necessary, irrespective of sex or age; the leftists and Democrats cry crocodile tears over the deaths of people they *intentionally* set up to be killed.

2a) If this is what happens, the Democrats believe that can parley those deaths into mass domestic outrage at the "crime" of killing "defenseless" invaders, and thus bring down the Trump Administration. If they are successful, this also spells the end of the USA, just slower that in scenario 1).

--- The (sub) scenario which the leftists and Democrats believe will not happen is this:

2b) The leftists and Democrats cry their crocodile tears over the deaths of people they *intentionally* set up to be killed ... and, rather than stirring outrage at our own government, the American People reply: "Go to Hell, Commies!" If this (sub) scenario plays out, America may yet survive.

That Guy, Over There!

When you think about it, the Democrats have *always* been the party of "If you vote to give me control of the government, I'll use governmental force-and-violence to take the wealth of that guy over there and give it to you", on the one hand, and "If you promise to use governmental force-and-violence to take the wealth of that guy over there and give it to me, I'll vote to give you control of the government", on the other.

The mordantly amusing thing about Democrat voters is that they *never* figure out that *they* are some other Democrat voter's "that guy over there".

The One True Bureaucracy rides again

BBC: Pope Francis declares death penalty inadmissible in all cases

To quote Ian Bibby on Facebook: "Pope Francis declares Catholic teaching to be fallible on matters of ancient Catholic doctrine, and therefore denies his own authority and the legitimacy of the Catholic church itself."

For the past few years (and especially since Francis was elected), I've been telling online Catholic friends -- especially the ones who like to blame leftism and related social ills on the Reformation -- that the day was coming when they'd have to choose between fidelity to The One True Bureaucracy and fidelity to Christ. That day has come closer.

Problem ... Solution

Problem ... Letters to Hannah: The wages of sin

I think I now (finally) understand why Mr Egerer has rejected Christianity; and it turns out to be the most common of reasons.

Solution ... Blog and Mablog: Complicity and the Christ

On Capital Punisment

Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette have new book on capital punishment. Edward Feser links to a review of it: Briggs on By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed

My comment --

All societies have the obligation to deliver justice to their members, and also to non-members who are presently within the ambit or jurisdiction of the society. No society has such an obligation toward persons who are not members of the society *and* who are outside its ambit or jurisdiction.

To *refuse* to execute the murderer -- to *refuse* to deliver justice to her (*) victim(s) -- is to give the murderer to power to declare, by the act of the murder, that justice for the victim(s) is not the responsibility of the society. That is, it is to declare that murdered persons were not *really* members of our society and were not really within the ambit or jurisdiction of our society.

Thus, blanket opposition to capital punishment is profoundly immoral. A society which refuses, as a matter of "principle", ever to execute anyone whom justice demands be executed, is a society that is profoundly unjust and immoral; such a society will inevitably *create* broad swathes of injustice.



(*) in case it's not clear, I used the grammatically incorrect "she" to mock the idiots who do it to promote "gender inclusive" leftist bullshit.

Coming soon to a swimming pool near you

Gentle Reader may recall having read last summer of an incident in Austria in which a Moslem rapfugee, one 'Amir A', anally raped a 10 year old boy at a public pool and then loitered around until the police showed up to arrest him. Gentle Reader may recall that at trial, his defense argument was that he was undergoing a "sexual emergency", as he hadn't penetrated any body(*) in four months.

In the piece linked below, Mark Steyn discusses the recent overturning by Austria's highest court of the conviction of 'Amir A', the rapist, on the grounds that maybe he just didn't understand that his anal raping of the 10 year old boy was not "consensual".

The problem here is not mainly Islam, though Islam is certainly a serious problem. The problem is leftism; to be more precise, the problem is leftists: it is leftists, in all their sub-varieties, who are destroying the Western nations. Deliberately.

Mark Steyn: Descent into Evil


(*) do note that I wrote "any body", not "anybody". For, after all, never mind consent, Muzzies experiencing a "sexual emergency" aren't too particular about whether those bodies are human or even alive.

But what sort of martyr?

Maureen Mullarkey at TheFederalist: Was Jacques Hamel A Martyr To The Faith Or To His Illusions About Islam?

Set aside, if you can, all horror at Hamel’s murder. Look past, please, all warranted sympathy for this good man and his terrible end. There remains a question: Was the priest a martyr for the faith or to his own illusions about Islam?

By all accounts a kindly man, Hamel served in a parish committed to the very illusion of ecumenical agreement with Islam that de Mattei abhors. The Belfast Telegraph reports the nuns gave reading lessons to Muslim kids in the tower blocks. Church authorities soared above such neighborliness. Courting dhimmitude, they donated the land beside Hamel’s church to local Muslims to build the mosque his two young killers attended. During Ramadan, the parish hall “and other facilities” were given over to Muslims. (In terms of Islamic jurisprudence, the mosque and the ground under it belong forever to the eternal ummah. The archdiocese has ceded a portion of Normandy to the caliphate. Allah be praised.)

In his last pastoral letter, Hamel called for communities to live together and “accept each other as they are.” But accepting Islam means recognizing its totalizing nature. Authentic acceptance is unsentimental. It is a prod to staying watchful. To befriend Muslims as individuals does not cancel the necessity to know Islam’s history, its millenarian ambitions, and its enduring theological imperative toward violence.

Christian charity does not entail any obligation to accommodate Islam’s muscular expansion in the West. One way to love the enemy is to defeat him. Yet Hamel’s parish was actively lending itself to Islam’s ascendancy. Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray is a lesson in the price Christianity pays for the fanaticism of profligate mercy.

All Lies Matter, II

David Warren: Confronting evil with joss sticks -- "...
The French president said it [the brutal murder by Moslems of a Catholic priest at the altar of a Catholic church where he had been officiating the Mass] was an attack on all French citizens, which presumably includes the citizen Islamists; our pope called the violence “absurd.” I find these lies in extremely poor taste. It was not an attack on all Frenchmen, but symbolically on a Catholic priest. And it was not absurd, but purposefully directed to that end. Father Jacques Hamel was martyred during the morning Mass. His throat slit, then by some accounts, beheaded; two nuns and two others at prayer also seized and tormented; and another throat slit; while a rant was delivered from the altar, in Arabic.

I am truly disgusted by remarks from Rome that we hope the elderly priest is at peace, and that we condemn “every form of hatred.” This reduces the teaching of Our Lord to the asinine. Reference to Islam was carefully avoided.

One wonders what atrocity the Islamists must commit, to make their point more explicit.

I really don’t care if they hate us. That is their opinion, and none of my concern. I do care that they are trying to kill us, on the basis of verses plausibly cited from the Koran. Would it hurt their feelings if we called them on this?"

A previous pope popularized (and, so far as I know, coined) the phrase "culture of death" to describe the suicidal direction that the post-Christian Western cultures have deliberately taken since turning their backs on the heritage, and religion, of their fathers; the current pope appears to have to have made his peace with the "culture of death" and to have dived headlong into it.

I'm so glad that as a Protestant and a Christian (*), I don't feel any need at all to contort myself defending that fool (nor the French one, for that matter).



(*) Yes, I went there. And, as Warren says of Moslems hating us, "I really don’t care" that (some) Catholics will get their panties into a twist -- hypocritically, in every case -- because I distinguish between Catholicism -- a bureaucracy which claims to own Christianity -- and Christianity itself.

While not claiming any "word from God" nor gift of prophesy, it certainly appears to me that the time is upon us when Catholics will have to choose: do you stand with Christ, or do you stand with the self-anointed "vicar of Christ"?

Which is the Real Catholicism?

This post duplicates the content of a response I have posted at The Orthosphere in Alan Roebuck's thread, Roebuck's Standard Orthosphere Disclaimer --

Echoing Leo, which is the real Catholicism -- the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (as a whole) or individual bishops (such as Chaput) or the commenters here (playing at being "reactionaries")?

Here is an official statement by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops concerning (the political joke known as) "comprehensive immigration reform".

Those who refuse to admit that The One True Bureaucracy is at war with our nation, and indeed with all Western nations, will seize upon the portion I will quote first, while totally ignoring the portion I will quote second (which is the reason for the order in which I quote).

Under the heading: Catholic Social Teaching --

"The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. ...

The second duty is to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good. Sovereign nations have the right to enforce their laws and all persons must respect the legitimate exercise of this right: "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens." Catholic Catechism, 2241."

That sounds so good, doesn't it? Well, unless one looks too closely at what is actually said.

Consider: "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions ..." But, of course, if they may, then they may not; that is, according this quotation from the Catholic Catechism, the enforcement of the "second duty[, which] is to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good" is not a matter of the duty of officials to uphold the laws of their "sovereign nation", but rather is a matter of the discretion of officials whether they will uphold the laws of their "sovereign nation".

Consider: "Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them ..." Really? And who is going to make this law and enforce it? Does the USCCB allow that the "political authorities" may deport immigrants who do not meet their "oblig[ation] to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them"?

Right!

Even in this part, which those who refuse to admit that The One True Bureaucracy is at war with our nation will seize upon, what is actually said is inimical to the interests of the citizens of the United States (and of all Western societies).


Now, for the second quote from the USCCB's stance paper --
"The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." Catholic Catechism, 2241."

According to the USCCB, the *first* duty of "good" government "is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person". According to the USCCB, the *first* duty of "good" government is not to safegaurd the security and well-being of the society of human persons over whom it asserts authority to rule, but rather it is to welcome the alien, over whom it does not assert the authority to rule, who chooses to intrude upon the society over which it does assert the authority to rule.

According to the USCCB, "[p]ersons have the right to immigrate", from which it follows that "thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible" ... and, of course, "the greatest extent possible" is throw open the borders, which happens to be precisely what the USCCB is shilling for.

But, look at that assertion again: "[p]ersons have the right to immigrate". Really? Since when?

The Founders of the US government asserted that "[p]ersons have the right to emmigrate" -- which, let it be noted, was a novel and revolutionary assertion by those who would rule over a people. But to say that "[p]ersons have the right to emmigrate" is a very different thing than to say that "[p]ersons have the right to immigrate".

Our Founders asserted that neither they nor any other set of rulers owned the human persons over whom they ruled. The Roman Denomination asserts that no existing human society (especially the ones which are "prosperous") has the right to limit, much less refuse, aliens intruding into its midst.

It's a matter of simple logic: IF "[p]ersons have the right to immigrate" -- if persons have the right to come into a society -- THEN societies have a corresponding "duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person ... to the greatest extent possible".


Further notice, this isn't *just* the damned (and I mean that word most literally) "liberals" of the USCCB -- and who happen to be the spiritual overseers of you American Catholics -- simply making these assertions; they are directly quoting the Catholic Catechism. This call to national suicide is made not just by the USCCB, but by The One True Bureaucracy as a whole.

Residual Christianity Syndrome

Theodore Dalrymple: Sorry Excuse