Tag Archives: Tyranny

So Let Me Get This Straight…

There’s no “evidence” that Trump’s “wires” were “tapped”; he was crazy to make such an accusation our Media/Democrat Industrial Complex tells us.

But, somehow, “U.S. officials” are hinting (actually illegally leaking) that they may have the goods backing up their fake story of “collusion” between Donald Trump and Russians. In fact, FBI Director James “The Kingmaker” Comey, has indicated that the Trump campaign has been surveiled since last summer.

Isn’t wiretapping one of the chief instruments of surveillance, especially long-term? And where is all the content for all these leaks coming from? It certainly sounds like phone conversation transcriptions. How were they obtained if not by wiretaps? Telepathy?

Of course there is the inconvenient fact that apparently at least one computer in the Trump Tower was being monitored by authorities. And what about news stories concerning FISA warrants aimed at Trump or at people near him?

Am I the only one finding it odd that Trump is portrayed as delusional or paranoid for thinking that someone has been watching him and maybe listening in yet, at the very same time, often in the next media story, they provide some kind of vague hint that authorities have evidence from surveillance that Trump and his campaign might be guilty of “collusion.”

They run these stories with a straight face and without the slightest awareness of the inherent conflicts of their stories – one or the other of these stories could be true but not both. Or they are aware of these conflicts and are just willing to blatantly lie while doing the dirty work of taking Trump down?

I’m entering a new phrase into the lexicon – media as warfare by other means. That is what we are experiencing.


The Walking Dumb


I have no idea what actor Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s politics, and they shouldn’t matter, but I hope he’s one of us or at least not being a liberal after this ridiculous incident — “‘Walking Dead’ Star on T-Shirt Hassle: ‘People Are Stupid.’

Ian Lucraft is a loser looking to be offended. Most people, probably 99% of them, are not going to have any idea what Lucraft’s whining about so how can the masses he alludes to be “offended?”

Can you be offended if you don’t realize that you’re supposed to be offended? Can you be offended if you aren’t, um, actually offended?

Buddhist koans have been built on less.

Perhaps Mr. Lucraft is angling to be Secretary of Offense (without portfolio).

Hey, Lucraft, you missed an offense — the differently-abled, legless division, are offended by the mention of “toe.” They are missing some of theirs. The trauma! The horror!

Mr. Lucraft, a lot of things offend me but I don’t demand that they be removed from the public. I understand that there might be people who like those things. I’m willing to take one for the team, obviously you aren’t. You demand that everyone kowtow to your tastes. (Ooooh, ‘kowtow,’ that’ll crank Lucraft’s Offense-O-Meter to 11).

You, sir, are a Nazi.

I’m offended by Lucraft’s stupidity. I guess it’s too much to hope he’ll be pulled.

The Left Hates You — Act Accordingly

Kurt Schlichter absolutely nails it with his “The Left Hates You. Act Accordingly.”

This is a very important statement. The left is playing to win and playing to eliminate any resistance to its belief in its historical progression to omnipotent power over all before it.

This Kim Davis Thing

I have to admit that the whole Kim Davis thing conflicts me.

She has a local public government job so she really loses all possibility of choosing what jobs to perform. She’s public servant — emphasis on public and servant. This was the job that she campaigned for (it’s an elected office). It wasn’t foisted upon her (though it sort of changed after she was seated). She wasn’t promoted into the job but sought it out. If she didn’t like everything about the job (including potential changes) she probably shouldn’t have run for it. She is supposed to serve all of the county’s citizens.

Yet our liberals have set out a precedent that public servants don’t have to actually perform jobs that that they are uncomfortable with. Look at the mayors, city councils, et al, of “sanctuary cities” and their refusal to enforce immigration laws or cooperate with federal authorities on immigration law enforcement. Or look at King Barry, he specifically ordered immigration officials to not enforce laws, even if some of them felt compelled to do their jobs.

Kim Davis was actually jailed by a federal court judge for “contempt” of his court by not issuing the marriage licenses, in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Obergfell decision.

So a federal judge, not a judge for the state of Kentucky or the county of Rowan, has decided to jail a county officer for not doing his bidding.

A federal judge is not an enabler of a county. A federal judge is not an officer of that county nor of that state. A federal judge does not sign Davis’s paycheck nor contribute to the county in any Constitutional, statutory, economic or civil way. He would seem to have no legal connection to Davis, her office or her county other than some declaratory overlord relationship. Maybe subservience is a better description.

Why do we even bother with local authorities anymore? Why not just have federal judges run everything? After all, by their own acknowledgment, they know so much better how to run the county than the yokels that live in those counties.

Who voted for this judge? No one in Rowan County. No one in Kentucky. No one in the United States voted for this judge. U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning is appointed by an authority outside of the state.

It needs to pointed out that Bunning was appointed to his position by George W. Bush and is the son of former Rep. Jim Bunning, a Republican. Davis herself is listed as a Democrat (Kentucky is the last redoubt of Yellow Dog conservative Democrats).

Things like this should engender a serious debate of the role and power of our federal judiciary.

Why is this woman being detained? Why not move to have her removed from office, for failing to fulfill her duties (as decided by this ‘inferior’ court), by the tools available to the citizens of Rowan County or the state of Kentucky?

Is it because the outcome of those time-consuming attempts possibly wouldn’t satisfy the gays behind this legal imbroglio?

Why the recourse to instantly federalize this issue and legally annihilate anyone standing in the way? We have time-honored and traditional models of dealing with public servants accused of not doing their jobs.

For centuries marriage laws have been the jurisdiction of states and their counties. Local community values, such as age, were defined and addressed by this approach. Few things are more “community” than marriage and its traditions.

What’s the hurry? Gay marriage was just ruled “legal” or “Constitutional” last June, having not previously been seen in the Constitution in the centuries before.

But suddenly marriage laws have become a one-size-fits-all (or fits liberal preferences) federal government issue. Everyone has to turn on a dime.

Here’s a question: Are the people pushing the legal proceedings actually citizens of Rowan County? Kentucky? Do they really have standing?

I can’t believe there are that many gay couples in Rowan County (population 23,000) demanding marriage licenses…

This proceeding would seem to have been concocted by legal tourists looking to start trouble. The “couples” I heard on the radio reports declaring their sudden liberation and joy didn’t exactly have Kentucky accents (though I’m sure there are gays in Kentucky).

If the supposed gay wave of Rowan County can’t obtain marriage licenses, nothing prevents them from moving or applying to the state of Kentucky for a remedy. Don’t like the laws of Rowan County or Kentucky? Run for office to change things, assuming that the citizenry wants to change, or move. Go live with people who are like you, share your values and want to be with you.

That’s the way things are/were supposed to be handled.

No longer. Increasingly, every conflict, disagreement, political issue is being inflated into a big issue and federalized. No doubt some of this intention is that liberals are increasingly dominant in the judiciary. If you can;t win at the ballot box, using the judiciary to obtain your goals has long been a liberal tactic.

The decent thing for the “couples” would have been to go elsewhere and let Davis suffer at the hands of the Rowan County citizens, if they want gay marriage. If not, why not let them live in their “backward,” insufficiently enlightened world.

But why be friendly when you can be a bully and make people you don’t like knuckle under to your particular desires? Especially when you have big brother behind you. That’s modern liberalism in a nutshell. It’s about power and submission.

Of course one can also argue it’s also true for Kim Davis and her supporters. She precipitated this.

This whole mess is an overreaction. No one is dying because Kim Davis refuses to issue marriage licenses to a handful of gays. Yet people are dying because King Barry and the officials of several cities, counties and states refuse to enforce the laws, notably on immigration, that they have sworn to uphold. Where’s the Supreme Court on this? Where’s Judge Bunning? Where are the activists now demanding compete and instant obeisance to the latest judicial farago? (You’ll find a lot of those ‘activists’ are also supportive of the law-ignoring sanctuary cities movement, how ironic.)

Magical Thinking

One of the key activities of the modern liberal is “magical thinking.”

One aspect of magical thinking is that by saying something, it will just happen.

A good example of this is the father of slain reporter Alison Parker. According to Broadcasting & Cable, Andy Parker  recently said that he wasn’t for taking guns away from people he just didn’t want “crazy” people to have guns.

Okay, Mr. Parker, I think you’ll find almost all Second Amendment supporters are already there, including the NRA.

But, and here’s the really “magical” part, how do you keep guns out of the hands of those who aren’t openly bat-poop deranged? Remember, liberals, it was one of your shock troop battalions, the ACLU, that sprang the less openly nutty from the mental hospitals. It was the ACLU that led the way into making it nearly impossible to get anyone committed or to attach the label of “crazy” to them. They still do that.

So exactly how do you keep a gun out of the hands of someone like mad dog killer Vester Flanagan? Yes, he was a crank; an angry man; a homosexual; but had he yet demonstrated an ACLU-approved level of insanity? I think the ACLU would have fought an effort to commit Vester Flanagan to a mental hospital; to infringe his rights due to mental incapacity. Don’t you?

Imagine an effort to commit a gay, black, former journalist and supporter of Obama? How much of a firestorm would that create?

In the eyes of the liberal Flanagan was golden — he had all the proper minority boxes checked. He was never going to be denied a gun. He could have shown up at a gun shop wearing a suit made of catfish heads and singing the Sanskrit version of Wagner and no one would have dared deny him because the media-generated public backlash if they did and he complained.

King Barry is also a master of this mode of thinking on issue after issue. He’s often trotted out this same “common sense” gun law that would magically keep guns out of the hands of wackos, if only those obstructionist Republicans, under the thumb of the NRA don’tcha know, would pass that “law.”

So how does that law work, your highness?

King Barry has yet to be asked that question by the media. Interestingly, Mr. Parker pleaded with journalists that since his daughter was one of them, they should lead the way in promoting the magic law which would keep guns out of the hands of the not-yet-obviously-crazy.

Maybe Mr. Parker and King Barry are thinking about the device in the movie “Minority Report,” that sees the future or predicts violent crimes. Maybe they think it’s real. You know, one sign of insanity is thinking that movies are real.

The Diversity Scam

It’s no secret that the cost of attending college has skyrocketed and continues to go up. With the federal government taking over the student loan industry under Obama, with promises of “free” education dancing in their heads, the shoveling of money into higher ed continues unabated (despite the constant squeals that we’re cutting the budget of education). For some reason, these supersmart people that run our government and academia haven’t noticed the correlation with throwing (student tuition) money at a problem and the continued rise of that problem.

One of the chief (if not the chiefest) burners of money at a school is its administration. Many have chronicled the explosion in “administrative” costs and the number of administrators at the country’s higher education facilities, public and private. Here’s a random take on it from the Pope Center.

Perhaps the premier example of mushrooming administration is what is probably the most unneeded office of all on any campus — the Office of Diversity (or some variant on that name).

Its an office that exists purely for mischief. It’s often an anti-academic office, placing itself in opposition to academia’s once traditional mission — education. It is almost always arrayed in opposition to what are called “conservative” elements outside of academia but the Office of Diversity labels them as “hostile” and seeks to suppress them (ask any College Republicans or Young Americans for Freedom chapter). Its target inevitably, the dreaded “white male,” more specifically, the heterosexual variety.

The Office of Diversity is not interested in actual “diversity.” Its definition of “diversity” is very narrow. Like its corporate and governmental siblings, its definition of “diversity” is based on skin color, gender and sexual proclivities. It has no interest in diversity of thought. It wants to stamp that out, which is why when you meet these people or learn of them, they are always liberals, usually women, seemingly most of them black. Here’s a typical example of a recent hire at the University of Tennessee’s law school.

Why a law school at a state university needs a “Diversity and Inclusion” office is beyond me. Don’t they have one for the whole school? Why in fact they do! Here’s one website for the Office of Equity and Diversity. And here’s one for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, which seems to be a different office. Oh, and look, here’s one for the School of Engineering (which is straight up-front about its racialist and sexist existence: ‘The goal is to enable the successful recruitment, retention and graduation of underrepresented [African American, Hispanic, Native American, Alaskan Native, Pacific Islanders, and women] students.’) And here’s one for the school of business. The school has numerous administrative offices, officers, commissions and so on for this stuff. Hey, they even have a “Safe Zone” program, lest a student encounter an idea they are unfamiliar with or that might challenge a preconceived and officially PC-approved notion. All costing the Tennessee taxpayer (and generous alums) millions, probably tens of millions, of dollars, for what purpose other than perpetuating a racial and gender grievance regime?

Wait, I jumped to a judgment there. Here’s something they are working on: “Inclusive Practice: Pronoun Usage.”

This made some headlines last week. In all seriousness, this isn’t from The Onion. The promoter is “Director of the Pride Center” (‘pride’ is another word co-opted by the homosexual movement), another item costing the taxpayers of the Volunteer State. No greater confused wretch can be found anywhere. Why let he/she/it command our communication?

As laughable as this effort is, these people are serious; Orwellian serious. Yet, despite resembling Chinese, it still seems to divide pronouns into three categories based on their gender origins. So what was the point? It’s not about improving language, it’s about power. Control the language and you control the discussion. Control the language and you can shut down those that disagree with you. That’s the point.

Oh, and the whole U of T system has an overall Office of Equity & Diversity too. All of these people in these offices make good money. More than a few make six-figure salaries.

Check out some of those pages and you will read about state and federal grants, private monies siphoned off. This money is not earned in the marketplace, obtained through open and fair work, voluntarily transacted. It’s wheedled and cadged from a series of interlocking, self-perpetuating agencies at many levels, staffed with like-minded activists, but funded mostly by the unaware taxpayer. They know that if the individual taxpayer knew about this they would not freely disgorge their hard-earned money for such things.

These people contribute nothing to the polity other than larceny and dyspepsia. They spit on the people that fund them, while also attacking the very community and values that have made them possible. They should be fired and the whole system cleaned out. They should not be used to facilitate a highly tendentious political agenda nor be funded by the state. Does any school maintain a “Heterosexual Pride” office? Any office aimed at specifically recruiting white, heterosexual males? Of course not, that would be silly and not a proper use of taxpayer or alum money. So why these well-funded efforts to promote racism, sexism and the homosexual agenda?

As Walter Williams said recently, “For starters, benefactors should stop giving money to universities that endorse anti-free speech and racist diversity policies. Simply go to a university’s website. If you find an office of diversity, close your pocketbook. There’s nothing like the sound of pocketbooks snapping shut to open the closed minds of administrators.”

We’re All Just Renters Now

You might think you own…

But you don’t in the mind of liberals, Democrats, the Supreme Court or the federal government.

The original concept of the United States under the Founders was that it would be a group of states mostly populated by yeoman farmers along with small scale business owners and service providers plus a handful of religious communities living pretty much their own lifestyles. Each man would be his own master, like a little lord. Most, if not all, adult males would own their own property or aspire to. Property owners had the exclusive right to vote in some places. It was kind of a “having skin in the game” approach.

In that construct, the individual is powerful. The individual has primacy. Government serves the individual and is devolved to the state or county level while minimalized at the federal level and when individual and government come into conflict, the individual should win out. The approach is to err on the side of the individual. In fact, local government would be made up of those individuals, rather than a faction of professional bureaucrats and politicians. That was the theory, anyway.

That was the theory, I should say. Of course no battle plan survives its first encounter with the enemy — just ask the farmers of western Pennsylvania, c. 1791.

Individual power has been eroding for centuries. One might start with the Whiskey Rebellion. It certainly took a turn for the worst with the Civil War. It’s been noted that it was there that the United “States” became the “United States,” that the agglomeration became the unitary; the needs and desires of the federal government overrode the powers of the individual states.

After a few post-Civil War decades, with some starts and stops with Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson restarted the centralizing machinery. Once Franklin Roosevelt was installed, the die was set.

We are no longer masters of our world. We are viewed as serving the government. We provide its room and board. We are subject to its interests. When the individual comes into conflict with the government, the government wins. The government has to win.

An irresistible government increases its power daily, hourly, all at the expense of individual liberty.

Land owners are no longer able to determine what they want to do with their land. Dozens of agencies (and third-party activists conducting lawfare) claw at the land owner, overseeing everything he does. Examining every detail: determining what can and can’t be built, grown, tended to, stored, modified, etc.; thwarting attempts to improve it, make it profitable. You don’t own your land. You might pay taxes on it but it is controlled by someone else. You can’t will it to someone without being relieved of a portion of it. In reality you’re really just a tenant. And you best behave or you could be forced to give up that land.

Businessmen find themselves filling out numerous forms at all levels of government; subject to diktats, licenses and inspections from all levels of government near and far concerning employees, finances, operation, practices, performance, materials, services and products. Erring even once can produce devastating, even fatal penalties though most of the encumbrances are niggling; rather of the parasite tick living off the host variety. But a hundred ticks can bring down even the strongest animal.

And government-empowered third-party activists find businesses to be a fruitful feeding ground.

This is not new. Thomas Jefferson wrote of King George III in the Declaration of Independence: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

It’s as true today as it was in 1776. Seemingly most everything in the Declaration of Independence is applicable in these times. Have we come full circle?

We are, in essence, now just fleeting passengers on the ship called United States. We occupy a room or two and when we pass away, someone else will occupy that space. We don’t own it, can’t will it to our children or chosen ones without the ship’s crew’s approval. Our ability to decorate it or make it ours is severely curtailed by the ship’s crew and even some of the louder, bossier, better organized passengers. We do not decide, they decide.

Or perhaps we occupy a location on a bench in the galley called United States. We galley slaves row our oar and as long as we row the government tolerates us and provides us with some food or “benefits.” Disrupt that routine and the eye of authority opens onto you. It does not blink and does not think twice about punishing you. You are its subject. Submit or be tossed overboard.

That we might own our own boat and go our own way, supporting ourselves and our family and friends without the big government ship or its crew is inconceivable to the galley master. “Why it would be chaos! Think of all those ships polluting the ocean, getting in the way, what would be the point? Think of all those galley slaves who don’t have a boat of their own — it just wouldn’t be fair. If not everyone can have a boat then no one can have a boat. And the boats must be equal, as well. No one can have a better boat, that wouldn’t be fair either.”

When King Barry famously said “You didn’t build that” he could have also said, “You don’t own that.” (For a little fun go to the Wiki page for ‘You didn’t build that’ and read all the sophistries trying to argue that Obama didn’t say what he, the greatest communicator evuh!, clearly said.)