"They" Don't Need to Keep You Down; You're Doing Fine By Your Own Efforts

Open letter to the American people --

Times are tough, everyone agrees: a person just can't get ahead. Rent, food, gass: everything is just so expensive.

That's why --

You are still smoking (of either/or sort) and drinking. Frequently.

You sit in your car -- sometimes for hours -- with the engine running, so that the A/C can be on ... as you doom-scroll on your phone.

You have the latest cell phone for every member of the family, including the children, with associated *monthly* costs. Oddly, you almost never use those phones to actually *talk* to anyone.

Every year, you spend hundreds of dollars you don't have "doing" Christmas. After all, you "deserve" it.

You also spend a small fortune to have a personal fireworks show, possibly for several nights running.

You insist on taking an expensive vacation every year.

You simply must have your "weave" and claws and spider-lashes, and the nails of your fingers and toes must be artistically painted. To say nothing of the expensive "product" with which you slather your face.

How  many hundreds or dollars, if not thousands, have you thrown away defacing your body with tattoos and piercings?

You eat "fast food", daily ... and pay someone an outrageous amount of money to deliver it to you. Someone could make a fortune offering to shovel it into your gullet for a price.

If you *do* happen to have a "home-cooked" meal, it was made of pre-packaged ultra-processed "convenience foods", rather than of basic ingredients that you could have purchased for a fraction of the cost.

I could go on and on; but the wise have already got the message, and those who haven't never will.

My point is this -- whether or not "THEY" are conspiring to "keep you down", they really don't need to: you do a fine job of that all on your own.

When is a Constitution "unconstitutional?"

The ongoing left-right political battle in the US is at root a battle between two conflicting and contradictory moral systems, as mediated by a battle between two conflicting and contradictory constitutions: the written US Constitution of 1787, on the one hand, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (*) and its penumbras and emanations, on the other hand.

When the Republicans enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they weren't content simply to overturn the Democrats' various "Jim Crow" violations of the Constitution, which unconstitutionally differentiated citizens by race before the bureaucrats of various of the States and which violated citizens' rights of association by compelling them to differentiate one another by race in private association. Oh, no! The Republicans were too clever by half, imagining that there were going to "pwn" the Democrats, and so they were played by the leftists: they drafted a law which violates citizens' rights of association by compelling them to differentiate one another by race in private association (but in the opposite direction to what the Democrats had been doing theretofore) and laid the groundwork for future legislative acts and court rulings which unconstitutionally differentiate citizens by race, and eventually by "identification", before the bureaucrats of the totalizing administrative state.

"Woke culture" is the natural and inevitable out-working of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent additions to it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- much of which is actually unconstitutional -- is being used by the leftists as the means to destroy the legitimacy of our Constitution and thus to destroy our Republic.

For example -- In 2008, the citizens of California passed Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to overrule a state-court imposition of "gay marriage" on the citizens of that State. A federal court later ruled that this legally-enacted provision of California's Constitution was "unconstitutional".

One might ask, "On what grounds was this amendment to the California Constitution decreed to be unconstitutional?" Why, on the grounds of the judge's interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mind you, this was years before the US supreme court imposed "gay marriage" on the citizens of the entire nation, in contravention of the written US Constitution.

For example -- You may be aware of a Turkish-born rabid leftist by the name of Cenk Uygur, who claims (or claimed) to be running for the Democratic nomination to the US Presidency.

Now, Cenk Uygur is a naturalized US citizen; which is to say, the US Constitution expressly forbids him to occupy the office of the US Presidency. And what do you think is Mr Uygur's strategy to get around this encumbrance? Why, and of course, it is to try to get a federal judge to rule that the US Constitution itself is "unconstitutional" ... on the grounds that by the Civil Rights Act it is "unfair" for the US Constitution and US law to distinguish between a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen, wedded to the false assertion that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution erases the distinctions between classes of citizenship.

(*) A deep dive examination of these conflicting constitutions will take us from the false constitution's rancid fruiting in Current Year's "Woke culture", to its flowering in Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society", to its growth in Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal", to its cultivation in Woodrow Wilson's and Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Movement, and will ultimately find the seed of the false constitution in Abraham Lincoln's violations of the written Constitution ... in the name of "preserving" that Constitution and the Union therewith established.

Auron MacIntyre: "Civil Rights Law Is a Problem"

Auron MacIntyre: "Why We're No Longer Governed by the Constitution"

When Is a Joke Not a Joke?

 When the joke highlights the hypocrisy of Democrats and other leftists, obviously.

The other day,'The Babylon Bee' put up a piece with the headline, "Trump Promises Vivek An Administration Position Running The White House 7-Eleven"

1) 'The Babylon Bee's' joke *is* funny, it's very funny;
2) The joke isn't *about* Ramaswamy; it's a multi-layered joke (which is why it's so funny) *about* the Democratic Party's inherent racism and hypocrisy about both race and Trump;
2a) Recall, it was Joe Buy-den who said: "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."
3) Had it been 'The Onion' -- a leftie satire site -- or the writers for Steven Colbert or Jimmy Kimmel who had been witty enough to make this joke, no one would be complaining about it, because everyone would understand it to be a one-dimensional "joke" accusing Trump of being a racist;
4) Those "conservative" who are offended by the joke have thereby outed themselves as not really conservatives, for they are operating under the false and hypocritical premises of the Democrats and other leftists.

Matt Walsh: The Babylon Bee Made A Vivek Ramaswamy Joke. It Didn't Go Well.

Matt Walsh laughing about being the subject of a BB joke: Babylon Bee Trolls Matt Walsh Before Easter Weekend

EDIT: Here is a comment posted to Tim Pool's video about this pseudo-controversy --

=====

I worked in banking years and years ago. As you entered a new account, you would turn to the customer the screen to choose their profession. I was working with a Indian man, and I turned and it happened to be starting on the list as "Convenient Store Clerk" and he was offended and upset. So he wanted the manager and the manager apologized and said it was random and nothing having to do with him being Indian. So he calmed down and choose "Convenient Store Clerk" as that was his job. lol

=====

Now, *why* was the Indian guy in this anecdote offended? Because he considered being a convenience store clerk to be beneath his dignity ... even though that is exactly what he was.

Had *I* been that man, I'd have found it so hilarious that I'd have been laughing all day.  But then, I don't think that any honest work is beneath me.  Even though I was a well-paid IT professional for most of my adult life, there were times between IT jobs (and, to be blunt, I wasn't actively looking for a new IT job, as I *hate* interviewing) when I have worked menial jobs, such as being a janitor in a steel mill.

Steps to Converting to Nuclear Power

 You can know that the "Save The Earth" types are hypocrites and that their "concern" for the environment is a mask for their true goals by the fact that they refuse to countenance the generation of electricity via nuclear power.

0) "Green/Renewable" energy is a pipe-dream, at best, but mostly a scam with multiple objectives;

1) Battery-powered cars will almost certainly never meet our needs;

2) Even *if* battery technology does ever advance to the point that battery-powered cars could meet our needs, that electricity has to be generated somehow (*cough* natural gas/oil/coal *cough*), and the grid must be made robust enough to get that huge increase in electrical demand to where the demand is;

3) THUS, if our society is to pivot away from burning hydrocarbons to meet our transportation needs, battery-powered vehicles will never truly be the answer;

4) One potential answer -- and for which we already have most of the necessary technology -- is to burn hydrogen, rather than hydrocarbons, in our vehicles;

5) However, burning hydrocarbons to produce the hydrogen to provide our transport needs merely wastes hydrocarbons; that is, burning natural gas/oil/coal to produce electricity to use the electricity to produce hydrogen would inefficiently use even more hydrocarbons than we currently use to get the same result;

6) And this is where the nuclear generation of electricity could solve the issue that the greenies and other leftists pretend to be so concerned about -- nuclear power plants could both power the grid to our homes and businesses *and* power the plants which generate the hydrogen we burn in our newfangled cars, and the existing infrastructure for the distribution and sale of gasoline can be converted to distribute and sell hydrogen fuel. 

EDIT (2024/03/11):

Sabine Hossenfelder: Hydrogen Will Not Save Us. Here's Why.

Nikki Haley's "Gotcha" Moment

So, the leftists are having a pretend melt-down because the RINO Nikki Haley -- who, by the way, is not a natural born US citizen (*) -- gave the "wrong" answer to a "gotcha" question about the "cause" of the so-called (**) US Civil War.

Here is the truth about the "cause" of the so-called US Civil War --

Slavery wasn't the cause of the "Civil War". 

The *cause* of the (falsely named) Civil War was the federal government's refusal to allow the Southern States to secede from the Union, as was their right to do, and to take all those sweet, sweet tax monies with them.

The main reason, though not the only reason, the Southern States wanted to secede was over slavery.  But secession is a wholly different matter from the war. 

(*) How odd is that?  Not a peep from anyone, much less the leftists, over the fact the Haley is Constitutionally barred from occupying the office of the presidency.

(**) The US "Civil War" was not actually a civil war.  In a civil war, two or more entities are fighting for control of the government of the same region.  The US “Civil War” was – like the American “Revolution” – a war of attempted separation.

EDIT (2024/01/04):

I suspect that there are two main reasons for Nikki Haley's ignorance of the cause(s) of the "Civil War":
1) Even most people of my generation are ill-educated, and would unthinkingly give the "right" (which is to say, factually wrong) answer. How much worse educated is the typical person of her generation?
2) It's quite possible that she never paid much attention to anything having to do the "Civil War", that she saw it as having nothing to do with her, as she is an Indian (dot, not feather) without roots in America.

Allow me to illustrate that last suspicion:

The last IT job I had before deciding to retire was in a 1.5-2 hour drive from home.  Since I didn't want to spend that much time on the road every day, I rented a hotel room on a monthly basis and came home only on the weekends.  Three or four years later, the hotel was sold to an Indian man (dot, not feather) in his 30s or 40s.  I presume he grew up in the US, as he sounded like any mid-western American. Though, his parents had thick Indian accents.

About a year later, he bought the property next door to the hotel. It had a business on the ground floor and an apartment on the upper.  He asked me to relocate to the apartment, as he thought my hotel room would earn him more money as a normal hotel room than as a long-term rental.

When he was showing me the apartment, he apologized for the swastika his mother -- a Hindu -- had drawn on the kitchen counter with some red substance. By the way, I was never able to fully scrub it off.  Now, as he was apologizing, it was clear that he didn't understand *why* Americans consider swastikas offensive.  He apparently thought it has something to do with the black-white racial divide; he said something to the effect that since I wasn't black, perhaps I wouldn't be as offended by it.

So, why did he not understand what a swastika signifies to Americans?  Why did he think a black American would be more offended by the image of one than a white American? The reason is that he doesn't see that history as having anything to do with him, and so he never paid much attention to it.

Amusingly, black Americans are the group *least* likely to take offence at the image of a swastika.  I, on the other hand, am in the group to take second-most offence -- an Evangelical Christian with Jewish ancestry.  I'm also not ignorant; I well understand that the swastika long pre-dates the mid-century mass-murderer with a funny mustache.

Socialized Medicine, Again

Headline: "Canadian Woman Dies After Waiting 10 Weeks for Cancer Treatment"

 Well, it's not quite that she simply died, it's that she was murdered by the Canadian state.

https://www.lifenews.com/2023/12/18/canadian-woman-euthanized-after-waiting-10-weeks-for-cancer-treatment-appointment/

Social Media in Action

FascistBook has removed some post I made some time ago, in which I was commenting on a news item -- I have no idea which post or its specific content, as I couldn't find a way to read exactly what the post had been. I did figure out that it was about a "hate crime" hoax. Anyway, they accuse the post of violating their "community standards" against spam. In other words, it "offended" some damned leftist.

In trying to see what they were accusing me of, I also saw that my FascistBook account has "some issues" ... they're falsely accusing me of having posted "adult sexual content". In other words, I have posted something which "offended" some damned leftist.

On "Our Brave Men and Women In the Military"

How are you going to defeat "woke ideology" when you subscribe to the foundational tenets of it? Notice how often Rep. Cory Mills pays the obligatory homage to feminism -- "men and women first responders", "men and women in uniform", etc.

Women do not belong in the military; women have no business as "first responders". The entire reason that the current military top brass is "woke" and is pushing "woke-anda" on the enlisted men is because of bowing to the feminist lie that women and men are interchangeable (and, soto voce: that women are superior to men) -- and thousands of "our brave men and women in the military" are going to die in the near future solely as blood sacrifice to the demon behind this lie. Similarly, the reason that one of the "cops" who "responded" to the recent break-in at my house was a 5-foot-nothing middle-aged woman who was almost as round as she was tall is because of bowing to the former feminist lie that "anything a man can do, a woman can do better".

Hell! According to The Current Thing feminist lie, men are better women than women are women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLcSCz3dVXg

Again. This Is Socialized Medicine

Listen carefully to this report -- they have done / are doing just the *opposite* counting these medical murders than they did counting "deaths 'with' Covid-19[84]"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvaglqROCw

The Race of Fishmongers

 There are two pious myths about 'race' which I detest for their falseness:

1) "One's race is the most important fact about one's self".
2) "There are no such things as races";

Leftists promulgate both myths, sometimes even simultaneously, depending on what seems advantageous at the moment.  Rightists, and especially Christian rightists, tend toward promulgating the second myth.

There two myths are pernicious not because they are mutually exclusive (for, after all, one might be correct), and only not because both are false, but also because both may have terrible real-world consequences:

1) IF it is true that "One's race is the most important fact about one's self", THEN racism is not only morally justified, but inevitable and inescapable; and perhaps not merely morally justified, but morally requisite.  This is where the leftists, in general, and the Democratic Party, in particular, have settled.  Though, in their defense, the Democrats have *always* been racists.

2) IF it is true that "There are no such things as races", THEN one is compelled to ignore what one's own lying eyes clearly see.  For instance, in medical care it is not infrequently the case that persons of some races are more susceptible to some specific diseases than to others. And thus, when one pretends that the patient's race does not exist, one may well waste time and effort -- and the patient's health, or even life -- by studiously overlooking conditions known to be more prevalent to persons of the patient's particular race. 

======= 

To quote myself from a recent post --

Firstly, the English word 'race' isn't *about* skin-color or ancestry or even about biology; it is about different ways of categorizing things or animals or people. That for about the past 150 years (i.e. since Darwinism took over the minds of the "progressives") we most commonly use the word to denote the broad continental origins of various ethnic groups doesn't change the fact that the word is not so narrow in its designations. [See below for an historical example of 'race' used in this broader, "non-racist", meaning]

Secondly, if you're distinguishing an Englishman from a Welshman, or an Igbo (called 'Ibo' in my youth) man from a Yoruba man, you are distinguishing these men based on their ethnicities -- for which distinctions the word 'race' has historically been used [despite that in presently common usage, an Englishman and a Welshman are of a common 'race', while an Igbo man and a Yoruba man are of a common 'race' different to the former].

But, what does ethnicity mean in a country like America? In the South Bend Indiana of my mother's youth (i.e. nearly a century ago), it mattered immensely whether one was "Polish" or "Hungarian". Or, it mattered not at all, if like her people, one was simply what is now disdained as "WASP". In my own youth in South Bend Indiana, some people just had difficult-to-pronounce family names.

The ethnicity of a black American and the ethnicity of a white America are singularly 'American'. Yet, sometimes, we do need to recognize the broadly continental origins of a person's ancestry.

While 'English' or 'Yoruba' are ethnicities, 'white' is not an ethnicity and 'black' is not an ethnicity. 'European' is not an ethnicity; 'African' is not an ethnicity; 'East Asian' is not an ethnicity; 'American Indian' is not an ethnicity. And so on [Nonetheless, the 'white/European' race is a real thing; and the 'black/(Sub-Saharan) African' race is a real thing; and the 'yellow/East Asian' race is a real thing; and the 'red/American Indian' race is a real thing; and the 'Australian Aborigine' race is a real thing. And so on.].

And yet, there are recognizable differences -- generally unimportant, but sometimes critical -- between a person of primarily European ancestry and a person of primarily (sub-Saharan) African ancestry. To blind ourselves with the one leftist lie that "There is no such thing as race" is as foolish and potentially harmful as to blind ourselves with the other leftist lie that "All there is is race".

=======

At the following link are English translations -- made in the 19th Century, when English-speakers more generally were not so simple-minded as in the present day -- of two ancient Greek references to "the race of fishmongers" --

"I used to think the race of fishmongers Was only insolent in Attica; But now I see that like wild beasts they are Savage by nature, everywhere the same. ..."

"But as to fishmongers, They're an inventive race, and yield to none In shameless conduct. ..."

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2013.01.0003%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D6

On the Democrats' New Boogeyman -- "Christian Nationalism"

 Seen on the internet --

=====
NYT reported, “Mr. Johnson declined an interview request and did not respond to a request for comment about whether he considers himself a Christian nationalist. But the little-known speaker of the House has made clear that his faith is the most important thing to know about him, and in previous interviews, he has said he believes ‘the founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around.’”

I hadn’t thought of it that way but yes, that is true. The Constitution is a document of restraints on the government, not the people.

The IUPUI professor’s definition of Christian nationalism is shockingly Christian: “Christian nationalism strongly favors traditionalist social relationships and hierarchies. This ideal society revolves around patriarchy, heterosexual marriage, and pronatalism.”

By pronatalism he means women birthing babies.

Professor IUPUI just described the 1950s. We have devolved into a nation populated by purple haired people, people with tattooed faces, bearded ladies, and 500-pound men. Face it. America is a circus now where you dare not slut-shame the neighborhood whore.

If we must go through this, at least bring back some calliope music.

=====

My response --

Contrary to what we all have been taught ... since the secularists/atheists took over the government and the schools ... the US Constitution does not establish a secular state. Rather, it establishes a non-sectarian, but decidedly Protestant flavored, state.

A secular state is hostile to "religion", which is to say, to Christianity. A non-sectarian state is supportive of Christianity, but takes no sides regarding any Christian sect.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Separation of Church and State" in the self-serving manner in which the secularists/atheists used that phrase as a bait-and-switch to covertly overthrow the prior American regime of "civic religion" or Christianity Lite. There is *always* a "god of the system", and there are always laws against blasphemy; in Current Year, it is blasphemy to say such things as:
1) homosexuality is *not* a Good Thing ... Hell! They have recently starting asserting that saying the word 'homosexual' is itself a "hate crime";
2) human beings come in only two sexes, and no genders at all;
3) men cannot be/become women;
4) women cannot be/become men;
5) women have no business in the military, nor in the police or fire-fighting forces.

https://donsurber.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-maga-mike

When Is Speech "Free Speech"?

 On the other hand, fomenting violence -- which is what the French State is trying to prevent -- is not free speech, any more than Drag Queen Story Hour is.

The Founders were not "free speech absolutists", and they very much approved of censorship; for contrary to "free speech absolutistism", not all censorship is the same.

The "free speech absolutists" are as much our enemies as are the leftists who are currently using federal government violence to silence and persecute us. In fact, "free speech absolutistism" was the bait-and-switch tool which was used to get our society to the present state in which actions sexualizing children are called "free speech", but speech opposing the sexualizing of children is called "violence" and "killing the marginalized".

Our civilization is destroying itself because our fathers and grandfathers allowed our enemies to distort the meanings of those constitutionally enumerated rights, and especially of the "Free Speech Clause" of the 1st Amendment, and in fact gleefully joined in that distortion ... because they wanted easier access to porn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGvqv4NsQCs

The False Promises of Environmentalism ... "With or Without Us"

"Mayor Pete" Buttyjudge (born 1982): "Look, I come from South Bend, Indiana. That's the home of UAW Local 5 and UAW Local 9. And I saw how the past generation of union auto jobs helped build the middle class and helped build communities like the one that I grew up in. And I also saw what happened when those factories closed. What the UAW is trying to do, right now, is to make sure that this next chapter of the auto industry .. which, let's be very clear, these cars are going electric with or without us."

======

Troy Hailey / Ilíon (born 1957): I *also* am from South Bend, Indiana. And I have seen 25 years more of history than Pete Buttigieg has; moreover, I didn't start "at the top", as Pete Buttigieg did, but from very near the bottom. I have *seen* what he and his ilk have done to South Bend, and to America.

According to some stats I found, South Bend's population peaked in 1960, at 132,445, and was 103,353 as of 2021 -- keeping in mind that the city, like most US cities, has been chasing tax-payers -- madly annexing as much land as possible -- since the 1960s "urban renewal" craze.

In case Gentle Reader is unaware, South Bend, Indiana, is where these wonderful Studebaker cars used to spawn until the mid-1960s. I *recall* the devastation to the city when Studebaker closed its plants in South Bend in 1963 -- laid off vast swaths of its workforce -- relocating the corporation to Canada, and then totally ceased production in 1966. I *recall* driving past miles of the corpses of empty, shuttered factories well past 1980.

And I *recall* that it was the UAW honchos, in conspiracy with New Deal hold-outs deep within the bowls of the federal bureaucracy, carrying out FDR's New Deal socialist objective to consolidate all auto manufacturing into Detroit, who put Studebaker out of business.

-- If you have been at all paying attention, you *know* that the US is nowhere near to generating enough electricity to charge the batteries of over 290 million battery-powered vehicles.

-- If you have been at all paying attention, you *know* that even if the US were anywhere near to generating enough electricity to charge the batteries of over 290 million battery-powered vehicles, the power-grid could not sustain such a load.

-- If you have been at all paying attention, you *know* that a road trip of more than about 200 miles is out of the question with a battery-powered vehicle.

-- If you have been at all paying attention, you *know* that getting snow-bound in a battery-powered vehicle will likely leave you dead.

-- If you have been at all paying attention, you *know* that "renewable energy" schemes are nothing more than vehicles to hoover money from your pocket and into the pockets of rich politically-connected persons.

-- If you have been at all paying attention, you *know* that "green energy" cannot meet our current energy needs, much less adding the charging of the batteries of over 290 million battery-powered vehicles.

-- If you have been at all paying attention, you *know* that there are only two options to *meaningfully* increase electrical production in the US: build more a lot more coal-fueled and/or natural gas-fueled power plants OR build a few nuclear power plants.

-- If you have been at all paying attention, you *know* that the Democrats and other leftists and their "environmentalist" friends adamantly oppose both options, and that they *especially* oppose and demonize the only option which has the capacity to reduce their Great Boogey-Man of "carbon emissions".

-- If you have been at all paying attention, you *know* that the strip-mining that would be necessary to mine enough "rare earths" to build the batteries of over 290 million battery-powered vehicles would make the toxic environments of the late USSR or of today's Communist China look like a pleasant suburban park.

-- If you have been at all paying attention, you *know* that *nothing* the Democrats and their leftist puppet-masters advocate is ever aimed at the good of you or of your nation, but *always* has the goal of enslaving you in socialism, with them as your owners.

EDIT: Amusing to me, the Studebaker corporation started out as a buggy-whip manufacturer in Mansfield, Ohio, where I have lived since 1982.

@28:10 Pete Buttigieg asserting that we *must* accept being forced into battery-operated cars -- https://youtu.be/l-skV89tmFQ?t=1689

This, Too, is Socialized Medicine

 Do listen to Neil Oliver discussing what few facts are publicly known about the British NHS "doctors" forcing a British girl to "accept" death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQD0HE9UfY

EDIT --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x6-VC-WJA0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuX6cXJg3p8

How can people see this sort of casual and contemptuous evil and then accuse God of being an immoral monster for "sending people to Hell" (as people incorrectly phrase it)?

EDIT (2023/11/10) --

Michael Knowles discussing a current case of the British NHS and courts refusing to allow a sick child to leave Britain for live-saving medical treatment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z98SKhS6kso

This is Socialized Medicine

 Headline: Ontario woman asked to donate husband’s organs after he was denied transplant for being unvaccinated 

35-year-old Garnet Harper died after hospitals refused to perform a life-saving kidney transplant on him because he did not take the experimental COVID-19 shots.

====

Monday, July 31, 2023 --

SUDBURY, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) — Canadian health officials asked an Ontario woman to donate organs of her husband who died after being denied an organ transplant because he did not receive the COVID-19 shots.

In May, Trillium Gift of Life Network (TGLN), the Ontario organ donation agency, called Meghan Harper to harvest her husband Garnet’s organs as he lay dying because the hospital refused to provide organ transplants to unvaccinated Canadians.  

“They call you while you’re sitting next to your dying loved one and they ask you if they can have his organs,” Megan told independent journalist Monique Leal. 

Healthcare professionals contact TGLN if they believe a dying patient would be a suitable donation candidate. As Garnet spent his last moments on earth, Meghan was advised by nurses to expect a call from TGLN.   

====

So, the very "healthcare professionals" who would not provide this man the vital organ transplant (*) necessary to keep him alive *also* volunteered his name as a potential "donor" to the ghouls who run the chop-shops which strip-mine sometimes-still-living "corpses" of their vital organs.

(*) My views on the morality of vital organ transplants are given in older posts.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-woman-asked-to-donate-husbands-organs-after-he-was-denied-transplant-for-being-unvaccinated/

An 'Epidemic' of 'Gun Violence'

 Concerning the Democratic Party's perennial excuse to disarm law-abiding citizens --

=====

Quoting from the link below:

“The worst 1% of counties (the worst 31 counties) have 21% of the population and 42% of the murders. The worst 2% of counties (62 counties) contain 31% of the population and 56% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 73% of murders. But even within those counties, the murders are very heavily concentrated in small areas,” he [John Lott] wrote of the 2020 numbers.

=====

Those "worst counties" are almost invariably counties with large cities which are populated by Democratic Party voters and run by Democratic Party bureaucrats and politicians, and frequently with draconian "gun control" laws.

If it were not for just a handful of Democratic-run cities. the US would have one of the lowest "Gun Violence" rates in the world ... despite being far and away the most heavily armed society history has ever known.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/murders-up-in-urban-areas-not-gun-friendly-counties

Usury and The One True Bureaucracy

@17:46 in the video linked below: M.Knowles has mis-stated what usury is -- apparently the mis-statement is intentional.

@18:17 in the video linked below: T.Aquinas (in the quote) is outright wrong about what what lending money at interest is.

@18:55 in the video linked below: M.Knowles: "So that's [Aquinas' argument] a little bit confusing ..."

Aquinas' argument against lending money at interest is "a little bit confusing" because Aquinas is tying himself into a logical pretzel to attempt to defend and justify a specific immoral and self-serving practice of The One True Bureaucracy of his day.

To lend money at interest is not "to sell what does not exist", it is to sell the use of that money for a specific time and at a specific cost. The use of money certainly does exist, and it exists apart from the money itself. The use of a sum of money is a wholly different thing from the use of a measure of wine or wheat -- the using of a measure of wine or wheat *just is* the consumption of it; but the use of a sum of money does not consume nor destroy the money.

There is a world of difference between the judicious lending of money at interest for some specific and defined purpose with a reasonable expectation of success and the modern orgy of debt-fueled consumerism.

Also, the real reason that The One True Bureaucracy created canon law outlawing "usury" was so that wealthy organs of that same One True Bureaucracy could further enrich themselves by usurious lending practices which would make a mafia don blush, all the while pretending that it wasn't usury.

This is how the "It's Not Really Usury" scam worked -- Petty Aristocrat A believes it will benefit his soul to go on Crusade. He doesn't have enough money to outfit himself and his retainers as needs be. He goes to The One True Bureaucracy (Division: Wealthy Organ B) to borrow the necessary monies. Wealthy Organ B lends him the money -- on condition of a mortgage (i.e. "death-grip") on his estate; that is, all income from the estate is to be turned over to Wealthy Organ B until the debt is repaid by income derived by other means, and if the debt is not repaid in some time period, the estate is forfeit to Wealthy Organ B.

I leave to Gentle Reader's imagination the contemplation of the fate of the widow and children of Petty Aristocrat A should he die of any cause while on Crusade.

Now, while actual usury is indeed bad and is indeed sinful and should indeed be prohibited by law, The One True Bureaucracy are not the people to be defining "usury" for anyone.

In the OT Law, God does not forbid the lending of money, and (contrary to the doctrines of The One True Bureaucracy) he does not forbid the lending of money at interest. What God does forbid is the enslavement of one's fellow Israelites (which, in Christianity, is universalized to all human beings) by means of debt. In almost every instance in the OT which is translated as a prohibition on 'usury', that prohibition is linked with the rationale for the prohibition -- that you not enslave you fellow Israelite by means of the debt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fgd8jBo1Sg

There are armies ... and there are armies

 When the Chinese Communist Party decides that they are ready to take on the USA, the army they send against us will be very much the opposite of "woke" -- it will be trained and disciplined ... and quite intending to win the war: 

* it won't be made of soybois and meterosexuals; 

* it won't be made of "male feminists";

* it won't be made of "*female* feminists";

* it won't be made of "non-gender-binary" crybullies who demand that everyone else must at all times remember whichever made-up "pronouns" they personally have claimed, and must never refer to them by any others, and most especially not by the *real* pronouns; 

* it won't be made of mentally-ill castration-fetishist "transexual" crybullies who demand that everyone else must pretend that cutting off their dicks or their tits magically transformed their sex to its opposite;

* it won't be made of Burn Loot Murder fascist thugs ... and it won't give a damn about *any* "black life";

* it won't be made of "Antifa" fascist thugs;

* it won't be made of "allies";

* it won't be commanded by generals who are less concerned with preparing for and winning wars than with demonstrating that they are more "woke" than the other guy;

* AND HARDEST OF ALL for most who have read this far to stomach, it won't be made of women, pretending to be soldiers; which is to say, it won't be made of women pretending to be men.  It will be made of actual men.

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.

America’s False Religion

J. Frank Bullitt at 'Issues & Insights': Recycling: America’s False Religion

"Though recycling rarely makes economic sense and often burns up more fresh resources than would have been used in making new items, Americans recycled. And recycled. And recycle still."

An old friend from college unfriended me on Fascistbook because I tried to get him to see that truth.

By all means, recycle when it makes economic sense to do so, when the act of recycling does not consume more resources in total than can be recovered. And how does one *know* when recycling makes economic sense? Why, when it doesn't need to be subsidized by using the threat of government violence to take money from you and me to give to the politically-connected few who thereby profit from the scam.

Edit: I recycle aluminum cans. I store them in the basement for 6 months to a year, then toss them in the truck and take them to be recycled. If I fill the truck bed with (grocery) bags of *crushed* cans, I may get about $50 for ... collecting trash in my house for a year. And that's for something that *does* pay for itself to be recycled.

EDIT 2019/08/09: Legal Insurrection: California’s Minimum Wage Rules Kill State’s Largest Recycling Center

California’s largest operator of recycling redemption centers has shut down and laid off 750 employees.

The Mercury News reported Monday that the company, Ontario-based RePlanet, has closed all 284 of its centers.

RePlanet President David Lawrence said the company stopped operating because of increased business costs and falling prices of recycled aluminum and PET plastic.

The move comes three years after RePlanet closed 191 of its recycling centers and laid off almost 300 employees.

The anti-economic wage-hike certainly contributed to the closure, but the greater cause is the fact that most recycling consumes more resources than it recovers.