We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, January 19. 2021
Over 50,000 Restaurants In Italy Declare "I Am Open" Defying Lockdown Measures
New York Times Writes That Somehow, The Positive News About Covid Has Been Buried Until Now!
Thousands Of Covid-19 Vaccines Winding Up In The Trash
The left now just wants to silence conservatives — all of them
Scarborough Just Revealed How the Left Aims to Pressure Big Tech to Silence Conservatives
Protesters At Pro-Gun Event In Virginia Deemed White Supremacists/Right-Wing Despite Carrying Gay/Trans Flags…
Trump rebuts NY Times '1619 Project' with '1776 Report' urging schools to reject 'ideological poison'. Series of essays cited as 'toxic propaganda' that is a 'crusade against American history'
Film Crew Releases Never Before Seen Footage of 2017 Inauguration Riots
Trumpism After Trump
Biden Official Tells Honduran Migrant Caravan Don’t Come Now, Migrants Demand Biden Honor His Commitments
Tax and Regulate - The incoming Biden administration looks to roll back Trump-era policies.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Any media outlet that advocates censoring, deplatforming, or shutting down another media outlet should have that done to them.
Turn off CNN. Tell your cable provider to carry Newsmax instead. Starve the a33holes.
I would add that we should not support ANY company (any more than we absolutely have to) that does not support free speech (eg. Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.).
Sadly, one of my (formerly) favorite websites, Legal Insurrection, has started censoring comments. Apparently, they are in fear of getting de-platformed. Whatever, I won't be censored. I no longer visit the site or send them a monthly donation. I doubt I'll be missed.
I was just censored on the Ace of Spades site; a post based on means, motive and opportunity with the conclusion that the surprise would be if something (which apparently can not mentioned) did not happen.
The supposed fault was with my writing style.
Nothing about the Inaugural military buildup in Washington DC, of 25,000 assorted National Guard, Active-duty troops, and cops? No word on the purity-testing of the troops, to query their -ahem- loyalties, since so many of them are white males, hence potential Trump voters, hence potential domestic terrorists??
The little display at the Capitol building a couple of weeks ago has triggered a massive over-reaction. It is highlighting the distance that our ruling class prefers to keep between themselves and the heaving mob, and it is underscoring just how much they treasure that distance. This is what they are willing to do, in order to protect it, even when the danger of hazard is low.
The Capitol protest - not insurrection - has terrified them. While only a few hundred protestors were idiotic enough to storm the building, the Ruling Class is looking out, seeing the total crowd size, and projecting it. They have put their craven cowardice on display under the bright lights. They're scared of the power of motivated voters. They're only brave enough to be brazen, as in the case of the 2020 election, when they have protection.
Has anyone seen official states for the number of people who actually entered the capitol building? I'm assuming the capitol would be heavily surveilled and the PTB should have a decent estimate.
Has anyone seen an autopsy or reliable source re: the death of Ofcr. Sicknick?
I heard that the office who died was hit over the head with something, maybe a fire extinguisher. That while he was being treated for his injuries he suffered a stroke that may not have been a result of anything that happened that day. I suspect if they had evidence of the actual assault being violent enough to cause his death they would splash that all over the news.
It saddens me to say that I believe very little that our government tells us anymore. You have to look at the "tells". For example they will arrest and prosecute most everyone involved in this protest but I suspect some (Antifa & BLM) will get off simply because to make it public that a couple dozen Antifa and BLM agitators were involved in breaching the capitol it will destroy the narrative that it was white supremacists who tried to over throw the government
Another big riot and insurrection last night in NY City. Domestic terrorists threatening our democracy. 20 cops injured, property damage and violence. Democrats rushed to denounce the violence and demand the DOJ prosecute these racists to the fullest extent of the law. Wait! Oh no! No problem. It was BLM and they were only protesting mostly peacefully.
... in advance of the upcoming (virtual) event(s):
ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more
Well, he puts his cigar out in your face just for kicks
His bedroom window, it is made out of bricks
The national guard stands around his door
Ah, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more
I keep reading that none of the president's attorneys presented evidence to support a legal claim of election fraud. Why is that? Where was the evidence and why was it not presented to the court at the time of filing the claim? Please explain.
There was plenty of evidence of fraud, malfeasance, and illegalities. It's just that no court actually heard the evidence much less have any finding of fact. Texas and about half the rest of the states sued in the SCOTUS because Pennsylvania ignored the Constitution when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled the legislature and extended the deadline for mail in ballots. That actually is an undeniable fact but the SCOTUS refused to take the case.
Some of the cases were apparently a bit sloppily written - at least partially because of time constraints - and that was one excuse for not examining some of the suits. Not having a finding of fact is a huge disservice to everybody. People who support the suits weren't heard, conspiracy theories grow, and the trust in our institutions is reduced. Anything or anyone that cannot be examined deserves no respect.
How could the supreme court of the US refuse to take the case--what was the reasoning?
What is the normal process for finding fact? What would it have take to find one reliable fact in order to get a case to be heard--just one out of all the damn confusion? I knew back in 2017 there would be fraud in our state election and in 2018 I was proven correct, but the AG (r) refused to hear the case. He later ran for governor and lost. But the fact remains that we had strong evidence. Could it have been enough to just prove mistakes were made and therefore the election in some areas would be done over? In other words not attempt to prove fraud -- just inconsistency and error.
The best recommendation I can make is to take the time and watch the weekly 2-hour Viva Frei / Barnes Law podcasts on YouTube. Robert Barnes is an experienced political lawyer that has argued cases in the USSC. He contributed to the Trump legal efforts. He knows the distinctions between legal principles and legal practices, and he related these in real time, as it was happening, how the judges in various state, federal, and even the USSC weaseled their way out of hearing the cases and exploring the merits of the evidence (they are after all human and subject to the same pressures from above and below as we are). As I say, the podcasts are weekly and I have found them very enlightening in understanding how the election result was arrived at.
Like many here, I think that it was stolen, but I believe the steal began all throughout the year, with Republicans failing to recognize the danger of Lawfare, the hazard of constantly shifting election law, but also were so desperate to be rid of Trump that they were willing to stand by and offer bad advice to see it happen. They are chump losers, nearly all of them, and they will never ever see another dime from me until they show meaningful and irreversible change. By that I mean, 'down the road, Jack'.
Here is Episode 35 for a starter, from 2 weeks after the election.
How vile does an activist have to be to cheerlead migration when covid is supposedly raging? Where are the Karens? Why would Mexico stand for it? In addition it's a dirty trick to encourage migrants when the hospitality industry is collapsing, many small businesses and bars aren't coming back any time soon, and our governing class has plans to reverse any economic gains that have been made. They've said that they will take actions that will reverse energy independence which will also rippple through the economy and suppress emerging businesses. It's unconscionable.
How can Biden already be talking to Iran about resurrecting the nuclear deal? I have it on good authority that an incoming team talking to foreigners is a big no-no and triggers concerns about the Logan Act. Where's the FBI investigation of this treasonous act?
BD, thanks for all you and your cohorts do here. May not agree all the time, but isn't that the point? Either Covid will rapidly go away as the new overlords come in and need the economy to generate some $ or it will be forever, a boot stamped on a face.
Whatever happens please keep doing what you're doing. And put the donation box out, would love to help offset the costs even a little bit. Thanks and best wishes.
Re: Mao Tse Tung
I read the article about this woman, but it didn't say much. The primary tactic of communists, which you can expect Washington D.C. to lean on heavily, is to always contextualize everything. Never refer to a specific person, or a specific example. That way, nobody can ever be blamed.
As an example, read this quote from a story about charity funds which were possibly stolen: "Mr. Cole said that he welcomed an arrangement that would bring in money for the AIDS cause and that executive staff had signed off on it. He said that he did not recall Mr. Weinstein telling him it would serve a business deal with the American Repertory Theatre, but that he was satisfied knowing the $600,000 was going to a credible nonprofit." As you can see, the money wasn't really stolen, because it went to a non-profit. And by definition, non-profits as government agents can't commit a crime.
As a further example, look at this quote: Since December 2020, airlines in Panama, Brazil, Mexico and the US have all resumed flights of the 737 MAX, while Singapore has taken its fleet out of storage in preparation for the resumption of flights.
Boeing began resuming deliveries of the 737 MAX in December last year, in what it said was a "key milestone as we strengthen safety and quality across our enterprise."
The reality of the situation is this: The Boeing 737 is a dangerous piece of shit, which needs to be removed from service. But nobody's at fault, because an "enterprise" is a huge collection of people. Therefore, no one is at fault. And Boeing as a government agent can't commit a crime anyway. We all remember the gun left on a park bench in San Francisco. Some crazy guy found the gun, and then shot a woman. The gun was clearly left on the bench by government law enforcement. But law enforcement as a government agent can't commit a crime. If you want to see a chilling example of how far the government will go to absolve itself, read the Wikipedia entry on the event: The .40-caliber handgun had been taken from a U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger's car that was parked in downtown San Francisco...the officer testified that the gun was under a backpack in his car. This story is the exact opposite of the story which appeared when the event happened. The gun was placed on the bench by an agent, and then found by a crazy guy; so the government paid her family ten million dollars. It was that simple.
So what you've got is an American government trained in the communist tactics of directing attention away from its own misconduct, and then charging innocent people with wrongdoing instead. So Remember: there are lot's of white supremacists out there, so keep your eyes open! Government Agents? Washington D.C.? HUD? Those are not the droids you are looking for.
Dear Mr. Lieberman:
Thank you for your post. But, I am unclear as to your intended meaning in the last two sentences--please explain.