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
Thursday, March 25. 2021
UK Lockdown One Year On: It Doesn't Work, It Never Worked, & It Wasn't Supposed To Work
The Dream of the '90s Died in Portland.Once an up-and-coming city, Portland was destroyed from within by radical activism and political ineptitude.
At a Certain Point, Even The Gestapo Had To Stop Cancelling People
Today’s blacklisted Americans: Lincoln and Washington, by Chicago’s Democratic mayor
Biden’s insane $3 trillion race to transform the nation overnight
'Money Laundering' for Terrorists
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Biden hasn't been talking for a reason - because the media isn't pressuring him on the issue. They're protecting their own.
I came to understand, over time, how Obama got elected for a first and second term - I think it was largely due to the shortcomings of McCain and Romney, respectively - but I still don't understand how an empty shell hack like Biden even got close, much less elected. He spent over 40 years demonstrating his lack of gravitas and a willingness to be both politically vicious and stupid, and each passing day of his term reinforces a perception of genuine ineptitude surpassing the day before.
It's difficult even to imagine someone who was red-faced, vein-throbbingly furious over Trump for 4 years then thinking that Biden was the superior alternative. Our times are making us crazy.
Do not under estimate the Democrat election fraud cabal. It has been stealing elections for 70 years that I know of. I had a friend who volunteered to help the Democrats in 2008 and he was selected as a van driver in the Sacramento area to give people rides to the polls. On election day he showed up and was assigned a "guide" who had a bunch of index cards and a walkie talkie. The guide directed him to the first group of "voters" on a street corner in the seedy part of town. They picked up half a dozen or so homeless and at a second stop they filled the rest of the 12 passenger van. The "guide" directed him to a specific polling place and then proceeded to hand out cards to these "voters" with the names of who they were to claim to be and who to vote for on the ballot. They drove to six polling places and repeated the process at each place. That was 10 illegal voters times 6 polling places. The guide then had him drop of the "voters" where he rewarded each of them with a small roll of bills. My friend asked how much he gave them and the "guide" told him to not ask questions. Mt left wing friend has a Masters in education and is no fool so he asked if this was legal. The "guide" told him to stop asking questions and if he didn't want to drive he would be replaced. They repeated this process three more times before lunch. After lunch they were scheduled to do it until dinner but at this point my friend backed out and went home. He hasn't volunteered since. However he did vote for Obama both times and is still a staunch left wing fool.
An acquaintance of mine who had moved to D.C. volunteered to work on the Bill Clinton re-election campaign (his wife was a Clinton appointee in Washington which is why he was there). So what they had him and others do is that they would be sent to various "town hall meetings" in Northeastern states, particularly New England, and then he would be interviewed by media and pretend to be a "local resident." He would give the spiel on why Clinton was so great and (was it Dole?) was a sleazebag and that everyone he knew in [BLANK TOWN] was voting for Bill Clinton.
He said he always worried about getting exposed but never once was he asked for any verification he was actually from the area. This was pre-internet, so he was basically just showing up on the local evening news in various spots. So Fake News has been around for a long time.
Pollster Mark Mellman and the mysterious Luntz make a good point. Biden's "failure to appear" is a good counter to Trump's incessant bloviating. How can I ever miss the guy if he won't go away?
"Biden hasn't been talking for a reason" Biden isn't talking because he is quickly losing any cognitive ability he may have ever had, which isn't much. Anyone that thinks Biden is planning and doing all the leftist shit that is happening have either been lying to themselves or has never been around a person with dementia or Alzheimer's. My brother in law died last summer and he was in the same state. He could speak reasonably for a few minutes and then he was just gone. Jill Biden, especially, and all the Dems should face punishment for doing this to a fading person.
The great looting of America. As we lurch left all the politicians are getting rich. Drunk on power they destroy our republic right before our eyes. All is lost but we just don't fully understand it yet.
Biden will not last out the year and Harris will be pushed into picking the most unliked person to be the next VP. I'm betting it will be Hillary.
I'm thinking it'll be Pelosi.
And Harris needs to be very careful - death by a slip and fall in the shower are... common.
Re: Biden hasn’t been talking for a reason
Sorry, I’m not buying it. At almost every opportunity, Biden displays how far he has fallen, and that’s not from a very great height. You can dress it up as a strategy but that’s just a tactic to change the subject and make it seem like you’re in control. The fact is, he’s sliding down mentally as well as physically and they are probably in the process of stealthily handing off the responsibilities of the front man to Harris even while the real work is done in the background probably by Obummer and Rice.
I agree with JC about elder abuse, but Democrats have never cared about individuals when there is a cause to promote, and there is always a cause to promote.
If Hillary is chosen as VP, Kamala would do well to hire a food taster.
Biden went from using the useful idiots to becoming a useful idiot.
The Dream of the '90s Died in Portland.Once an up-and-coming city, Portland was destroyed from within by radical activism and political ineptitude. I used to like going into Portland. No more...
Biden: I didn't used to believe in zombies...
"Fascist Checkers" is a truer statement. (I couldna resist.)
What Trump Derangement Syndrome Has Wrought: The "Democrats" hate, Hate, HATE the rest of us.
'Money Laundering' for Terrorists | Opinion: I don't trust NEWSWEEK.
Ninth Circuit ruling: no constitutional right to open carry in public.
This is very important 2d Amendment case.
Young v Hawaii
“The en banc court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawaii’s firearms-carry scheme is lawful.”
Validates a Hawaii law, applies to other Ninth Circuit states and permits those states to ban open carry. It does not invalidate those other state laws which allow open carry, just makes the right subject to legislative action. Expect a petition to the Supreme Court for review.
Hope to see a sane discussion on this.
"shall not be infringed".
Defacto cause for impeachment of those judges.
I used to follow Harry Browne (twice Libertarian presidential candidate and author of several books including the renown, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World). He once explained the questions he would use to choose Supreme Court Justices.
1. Can you read?
2. What do the words, "shall not be infringed" mean?
3. What do the words, "Congress shall make no law" mean?
4. What do the words, "shall not be violated" mean?
Sadly, Browne has died and never got a chance to choose a Supreme Court Justice nominee.
Those are legitimate questions for seeing if a judicial candidate is a strict constitutionalist, but this theory should not be taken for one meaning absolutely no restrictions on content or time/ place/ manner of speech as one guy seems to think.
"[M]ake no law" if interpreted literally (and it never has been) would effectively bar Congress through the First Amendment and every other governmental entity through the Fourteenth Amendment from making laws against child porn, defamation, inciting riots, suppressing political speech, "yelling" fire in a theater, etc.
It is either the constitution as written or a slippery slope to eventual tyranny. This process of 'de-constitution cannot continue indefinitely. Sooner or later it will cause a violent uprising. Surprisingly, it appears that people are willing to allow the freedom of speech to be taken from them. My gut feeling is that is NOT what will happen if the 2nd amendment is usurped. The Democrats and some on the right are playing with fire. Of course if it is their intent to precipitate the 2nd American civil war than they are freaking geniuses because that is what they will get.
It seems to me that a lack of enforcement of existing gun laws, could curtail quite a few gun crimes. Having never purchased a firearm, I was unaware of form 4473, and that it is a felony to not provide accurate information. Today I learned, that Hunter Biden probably lied about questions on that form. He was kicked out of the Navy for drug use. The form asks about drug use. I’m sure there won’t be repercussions for Hunter. L
How many mass shootings have there been, where we learn that the FBI was looking at the perpetrator before the perpetrator went on his killing spree? How many lied on form 4473? Lots of man hours to investigate such things The FBI can send 15 agents, on an immediate investigation of a garage pull, can’t they, and the ATF find time to investigate form 4473 frauds?
Interesting also, that it is perfectly legal to open carry in Arizona. No permit or permission needed - as long as you are not a felon - as the second amendment succinctly states. That is until the Ninth circus forgot what the definition of ‘to bear arms’ and ‘shall not be infringed’ means.
So, under your thinking, "make no law" means that a state law that makes defamation a civil tort, a criminal law against child porn, and SEC regulations that prohibit false statements in public stock offerings all lead to tyranny. Yeah, sure. You don't know what you're talking about.
You have “make no law” in quotes, why? Make no law, and shall not be infringed, are two entirely different subjects. My first two paragraphs are pointing out governments failure to in force existing law. Did I even hint that the existing laws are tyranny? My point, to make it perfectly clear, is government failure. Why don’t you address that?
There are admittedly certain "edge conditions" that were not anticipated when Madison wrote the Constitution and the general rule that only moral people are deserving and capable of self government was a known "limitation" of the Constitution when it was written.
As for child porn, it occurs to me that certain actions with a child might be better outlawed rather than published images which would then become evidence of the crime.
Wouldn't "suppressing political speech" be one of the things not allowed under 1A and certainly riots are not peaceably assembling?
The Constitution was pretty much a document of principles for limiting the power of government and as such it's pretty easy to deconstruct it but then your deconstruction can be deconstructed pretty easily too.
The problem with "child porn" is the law is abused. Most of us think of terrible things when we hear that label and I'm sure that there are terrible child porn out there. But there are also a substantial number of teens who have been charged with crimes and in many cases convicted of the crime of having child porn when what they had was a revealing picture of a girlfriend or wanbe be girlfriend. The simple but perhaps uncomfortable fact is that although it is disgusting to lust after a prepubescent child it is normal and intended by nature to lust after a post pubescent child/adult. Should 17 YO boys go to jail because they have a texted photo of a 17 YO girl?
That's not what child porn laws are about. State laws are too varied to comment on here, but federal law defines child porn as as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a someone under 18 years of age.
Maybe you should read up on this before you give an opinion.
It seems you failed to read what I wrote and just jumped in with one foot in your mouth, your head up your ass your mouth running while your mind was disengaged. You are a piece of work, crawl back in your hole.
Fuck off. Buy a clue. idiot. You're out of your league.
I agree I am out of my league, I am not accustomed to spilling my bile at everyone online. You sir, are an expert. Careful, don't get any on you.
"Edge conditions." I disagree. "Moral" and "responsible" had a different meaning in 1796 and included restrictions like real property ownership, poll taxes and other voting restrictions based on sex and race that would be repugnant today. And remember until the post Civil War amendments, states were free to impose any restrictions on federal constitutional rights without limitation.
"Child porn." Sexual relations between minors and adults are already criminalized and photographs and videos are not always needed as evidence to convict. The testimony of the victim, witnesses, confessions and medical evidence is usually enough, On the other hand, there is a enormous underground trade in this filth, and by "trade" I mean trafficking victims as well as video.
"Political speech" I'll conceded there the argument was garbled.
There is already a finely tuned mechanism for determining when speech content can be regulated and to what extent. Factors include public vs private interest, how heavy the burden the government has to carry to establish reasons for restricting speech, whether the restrictions can be done in a less onerous way. Child porn gets no protection, political speech gets the most. Advertising is near the bottom, there are many laws that regulate what a company can advertise about its product. Ads for fake covid "cures" can be shut down (but puffery is protected speech). You can criticize the manner in which this is done, whether one factor is more or less important, but you can't deconstruct the process by disagreeing on the internet.
Do you really think all restrictions on speech content erodes the First Amendment? You can't be ok with defamation or disapprove of blue sky laws, or believe that yelling "fire" in a theater or restricting a man parking a sound truck on a public street at midnight in a residential neighborhood yelling political slogans is protected speech. Right?
I can't remember the particular issue but in reading Madison's biography, an issue or two came up where one part of the Constitution conflicted with another. Those were the "edge conditions" to which I was referring. It's not a perfect document.
Child porn isn't something I've thought a lot about but I was considering the point that the actions (sex acts, trafficking, etc.) should be illegal rather than the publishing of pictures, movies, or stories. Thus child porn shouldn't be be 1A issues. I'm not a lawyer but I would suppose that a person would be prohibited from writing and publishing a book about playing doctors when he was a child... I'd rather stick with a more strict interpretation of 1A.
You bring up some good points about some speech such as advertising claims but I think I'd still rather the strict interpretation of 1A. False covid cures... Being able to silence "false covid cures" allows silencing real covid cures which happened recently wrt hydorxychloroquine (admittedly, Congress did not squelch the speech but state governments did or essentially did. We have had federal politicians suggest that people be punished for suggesting the last election was not fair. As for false claims about products, we have that already and I'm not sure that any laws have actually made that situation any better.
As for defamation, libel, and slander, those are intentionally damaging to a person and should be illegal. Maybe the Constitution should explicitly address these but it's plain that the Constitution should not be read to allow a person to willfully harm another. The same pertains to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
The main flaw that I see is that the Constitution limits government, which is a GREAT thing, but it doesn't limit corporations. A person can legally be fired for holding certain views. In some cases, people have been black balled for holding certain views. A company can deny service to another company or person for holding certain views. Yet a baker must provide a cake that conflicts with his views. The Constitution is silent on this.
Except in cases where actual harm is intentionally done to another, I favor the strictest interpretation of 1A. I expect you will say that even that has a lot of gray area there and I'd agree but that is an area where I'm willing to have the government overstep a little.
Child porn and other speech. Gone With the Wind and Deep Throat are both First Amendment Protected speech because they are artistic expressions. Child porn is a whole different category, even though it is also found on video like the other two, the difference is the content of the speech. The federal definition of child porn is depictions of sex with a minor. Even though it is "speech," child porn has no First Amendment protection.
But I suggest you consider this: misrepresenting the value of securities, using mail or the wires (email, telephones) do so, advertising horse piss as a covid cure, child porn, defamation, wire fraud -- all those are kinds of speech content. If they are First Amendment protected, then the states or the fed cannot criminalize them or make them civil torts. But the First Amendment as interpreted by the federal courts (you can't avoid judicial review because that's been accepted for well over 200 years) as it exists now can deal with this. The public interest in not having child porn or allowing sales of horse piss cures is high, the private interests of child pornographers and medical fraud have zero value. That is a thumbnail description of how the Constitution balances public interest vs private rights.
The question of how far government should involve itself in allowing business entities to regulate the speech of their employees (or the public, in the case of social media) is an issue we could debate for days, it is a very complex problem. I don't completely disagree with you however. But consider that sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.
Obviously we disagree, but well-argued.
The law seems one dimensional but is actually many faceted. I have no practical problem any of your examples and I think ur discussion points out some of the gaps between principles and reality. Thanks for making me think further about this.
Re: Biden's Plan to Transform America
Democrats must know that taxing the “rich” will never produce enough money to pay for their progressive plans; they’ll do so anyway.
There's a huge hole in the national recovery narrative: It's not "high wage" earners who need to pay more taxes, it's high net worth individuals. Most people don't know it, but there are people who own millions of acres of land in America, and don't pay one penny in taxes. This happens because our tax codes allows a "Family Trust" to pass wealth from one generation to the next without paying anything. If America is going to recover, then Family Trusts have to be put out of business. And further, the secretive nature of high net worth politics needs to end. The tail is wagging the dog. So let's see a list of the hundred largest private land owners, and the taxes which they pay.
Since you are an expert on trusts answer this question:
Was the money that was earned to fund these trusts taxed?
Since you can't answer I will make my point. If the money was already taxed when it was earned and all laws were followed why should it be taxed again simply because that individual is richer than you?
If on the other hand you feel that the existing tax laws have too many loop holes or favoritisms then lobby to get them changed. Tax laws are often written to favor certain people and groups and that is where your effort should focus.
That is definitely not true.
Don't take tax advice from this clueless guy.
Re; Portland. The city became a drain for misfitting young white men; basically their employment possibilities have been stunted by corporate and governmental preferences for people who are not white men which makes diversity. Without employment and in the general climate rejection by diversity, they are economic and reproductive junk. As junk they become the foot soldiers of anarchy. Of course they see it upside down.
There is a very interesting twist to this story, called the MAX (Metropolitan Area Express). The MAX, or light rail, began about 1982 or so. The MAX offers easy cheap anonymity for individuals and groups to get from one place to another. Most of the people in these riots don't live in Portland, too expensive. They live in the suburbs and ride the MAX to the riots.
An interesting side note, when the MAX was extended to the Clackamas Town Center Mall they had a sudden and unending surge in crime. The MAX has pretty much put everyone in the greater metropolitan area at risk and destroyed neighborhoods.
That is kind of what happened when the put MetroLink in STL. Certain population rode to areas and went to the malls where bad things began happening.. A lot of people stopped going to that mall.
When Harris becomes president she will never pick Hillary or Pelosi they are both true democrat racists. Maybe AOC or the other three gang of four for VP.