A federal bureau of liars 18
The top analyst assigned to the FBI’s Russia “collusion” case codenamed Crossfire Hurricane, admitted under oath that neither he nor his team of half a dozen intelligence analysts could confirm any of the allegations in the Steele dossier [falsely incriminating Donald Trump], including ones the FBI nonetheless included in several warrant applications as evidence to establish legal grounds to electronically monitor a former Trump adviser for almost a year.
FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten made the admission under questioning by staff investigators for the Senate Judiciary Committee during closed-door testimony in October.
Read the story about the vicious callous lying of Brian Auten, John Brennan and the whole portapotty of Democrat demons here.
Marxism-Schwabism: or the dictatorship of the tycoons 212
The silly-billy tyranny exerted shamelessly now by the Obama-Pelosi gang through a puppet president, nasty as it is, may be short-lived because nonsense cannot endure. But the real power, the serious power, lies elsewhere, with the financial institutions.
They have an agenda to reduce us all to serfdom.
We summarize an article by Justin Haskins at Townhall:
In June 2020, elites from around the world announced [from a “virtual Davos meeting”] the launch of a plan to “reset” the entire global economy.
Every country, from the United States to China, must participate in the Great Reset, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. So wrote Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.
Although Great Reset supporters call for dramatic expansions of government welfare programs, including job guarantees, government-provided health care, etc.,the heart of the Great Reset is something called environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics. Those include how “green” a company is, its “right” ratio of minorities, whether a business is involved in politically disfavored industries such as gun manufacturing and sales. According to its ESG metrics, a company is accorded a rating.
Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo – the six largest banks in the United States – have announced their commitment to the Great Reset. (So has Mastercard.)
Individuals should also expect to be “rated” by these financial institutions. If you want a loan from one of those banks in the future, you’d better toe the globalist line on climate change.
If banks are allowed to collectively decide to stop financing any group of people they want, based not on financial concerns but ideological considerations, then banks and their Great Reset allies will have, in effect, near-total control over society.
In January 2021, the Trump-era Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a finalized Fair Access to Financial Services regulation that would have made it illegal for large banks to engage in that sort of discrimination. But just one week after entering the White House, President Joe Biden “paused” the rule’s implementation, signaling his clear intention to eliminate the rule before it ever has a chance to be published in the Federal Register. No surprise. The Biden administration’s “climate czar” John Kerry is an ardent supporter of the Great Reset.
The time has come for a massive populist revolt against the Great Reset. The fate of the free world depends on it.
The country ruined 114
… a desert crossed …
… and then restoration?
Conrad Black writes at American Greatness:
The Trump-hate coalition is crumbling. There will be no further serious pursuit of him legally or pseudo-legally and the wheels are coming off the rickety anti-Trump coalition in all four directions. For absolutely no plausible political or humane purpose (other than to admit millions more illegal voters), the administration has opened the southern border while failing to be able to offer one truthful answer to questions about its border policy. The United States is now directly complicit with the Mexican drug and slave gangs in opening up access to the country and is deliberately importing unskilled labor to undermine the standard of living of American lower-income citizens.
The African American militants who were allowed by the Democratic big-city mayors to ransack urban America all summer and were rewarded for their murder, vandalism, and looting with the defamation and defunding of the nation’s urban police forces, are agitating and threatening with redoubled vigor. The rabid Democratic media outlets that made the campaign for the semi-comatose candidate are largely in a state of upheaval. Leading media Trump-haters such as MSNBC president Phil Griffin and CNN head Jeff Zucker have gone or are going, and despite frantic attempts to appease them, many of the great anti-Trump newsrooms are being overrun by belligerent white-hating minorities.
They drove Trump from office and then they turned on themselves and they are ruining the country. But as Adam Smith famously said, “There is a lot of ruin in a country,” especially a great country like the United States. Trump was often outrageous but was a good president.
On one point alone we firmly disagree with the author: President Trump never outraged us. He never even annoyed us. He made us laugh with him. And we cheered him.
The article ends on a note of confident optimism:
In four years this self-destructive Americaphobic nightmare will be over and a regime led or at least supported by Donald Trump will be back. In a phrase of General de Gaulle’s in the dark days of France, “We are crossing the desert.”
Will the nightmare be over in four years?
Is there an end to the desert?
President Trump’s accomplishments 25
Magapill records the major accomplishments of President Trump under three headings: Government, Economy, National Security.
One by one, often many per day, they are being undone, cancelled, reversed, extinguished by Joe Biden, who acquired the power to do so by means of a vast Leftist conspiracy.
The list is impressive. It needs to be displayed in an exclusive presidential library.
The danger of having a senile commander-in-chief 96
The Western Journal reports:
The Taliban threaten a “reaction” if President Biden reneges on the May 1 deadline negotiated by President Donald Trump to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan.
Trump negotiated a May 2021deadline for a full U.S. troop withdrawal from the pointless, bloody, $2 trillion Afghan war.
Since then, the Taliban have not attacked U.S. or NATO troops — the first time in two decades that no American soldier died in combat in Afghanistan for an entire year.
This is a significant milestone because 2,300 U.S. service members have died in Afghanistan since the war began in October 2001.
And yet, during his inept first news conference Thursday, Biden suggested that U.S. troops could stay in Afghanistan through the end of the year – seven months past the deadline.
The Taliban’s brazen ultimatum, its threat of retaliation if troops aren’t withdrawn, underscores that America’s enemies are not afraid of bumbling senile Biden. China, Russia, migrants in Central America, and our foes in the Middle East see Biden’s doddering frailty clearly. His weakness sends a message to the world that the U.S. is severely compromised. And this endangers all Americans.
China spanks Biden’s envoys 198
The Democrats continually declare America to be a morally rotten country, racist, bigoted, unjust, cruel. (Example: see what Vice President Harris has to say about America here.)
Naturally that delights its enemies – China in particular.
As leaders of a contemptible country, representatives of the Biden administration found themselves too weak to withstand even a merely verbal attack by a Chinese delegation.
What could they say in its defense, they who scorn and condemn it as ruthlessly as any enemy might do?
John Hinderaker reports and comments at PowerLine:
On Thursday, delegations headed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi met at the Captain Cook Hotel in Anchorage. It was the first such meeting of the Biden administration. … The parties agreed that the public session would begin with a two-minute statement by each. Blinken spoke for two minutes, after which Yang contemptuously ignored the agreed-upon protocol and delivered a 20-minute attack on the United States. From there, things went from bad to worse.
The London Times, which, like pretty much all mainstream European news outlets, favors the Democrats, reports:
The Chinese side came to the talks in Alaska prepared to counter every US rebuke with one of their own. To the charge of Chinese cyberattacks, Yang said that “the US is the champion” while in response to the repression of Uighurs being labelled as genocide, he said that the US was guilty of the slaughter of black Americans.
The Chinese … know that the Democrats’ peddling BLM mythology disables them from defending the United States against such attacks, and they take full advantage of the Biden administration’s weakness.
“The United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength,” said Yang, who was accompanied by Wang Yi, a state councillor.
He criticised what he said was America’s struggling democracy and its poor treatment of minorities.
The Daily Wire reports on the meeting from a perspective [even] less friendly to the administration:
The meeting in Alaska came at the request of the Biden administration and was their attempt at trying to restart bilateral relations with China. Instead, after addressing some issues that the administration had with China, China openly mocked and attacked the U.S.
“Biden is weak. And many other countries are happy about it,” former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell said. “And the woke US media is too partisan to report fairly.”
One of the Biden administration’s most contemptible themes is its declaration that “America is back.” It was during the Obama administration – when, of course, Joe Biden was vice president – that America retreated from the world, appeased its enemies, and let its defense capabilities wither.
The Donald Trump administration took important steps to strengthen our armed forces and, unlike Obama and Biden, stood up to both Russia and China, advancing American interests under the banner of “America first”. The only thing that is “back” under Joe Biden, or whoever is running U.S. foreign policy these days, is weakness. And the Chinese know it.
Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs told The Daily Wire:
… Critical race theory and identity politics at home makes us a splintered, self-loathing mess. The CCP knows this. It’s why they used all those BLM talking points in Alaska. …
Center for Security Policy President Fred Fleitz — former NSC Chief of Staff, CIA analyst, and House Intel Com staff member — effectively said that the Biden administration was responsible for the meeting being a disaster:
Blinken foolishly did not anticipate that the Chinese officials would retaliate in their remarks responding to him. This gave the Chinese officials a rare opportunity to dress down the Secretary of State before the press. Blinken was visibly unnerved by the Chinese response. Blinken’s response was defensive and incoherent. He also repeated Biden’s silly “America is back” theme.
Most disturbing, despite Blinken and [National Security Advisor Jake] Sullivan’s criticism of China, there was not one word on Beijing’s criminal negligence that allowed the coronavirus to become a dangerous pandemic, or any criticism of China for its continuing refusal to fully cooperate with international investigations of the origins of the virus, including inspections of the Wuhan biolabs.
This press event in Alaska was a debacle that will build a perception that the US is returning to Jimmy Carter-like incompetence in foreign policy. America’s enemies are watching and planning …
After all that scheming, contriving, cheating to get back into power, now they’ve got there the “transform America” party doesn’t know what to do, or how to do anything at all to protect the country it leads and hates.
The powers that be 71
Prince Harry and his wife Meghan may have deliberately harmed the institution of the British monarchy by slandering it in an interview with Oprah Winfrey in a broadcast to tens of millions, and that is the only thing about them that is of any interest.
The Queen’s reaction to their complaints of being ill-used by the royal family because Meghan is non-white, was – as her reactions always are – pitch-perfect: she spoke as Harry’s grandmother of her regret that he and his wife had been unhappy, and said simply that “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members”. She did not allude to them by their titles; she wants the scandal that Markle has made to be treated as a family affair. She may thus have prevented Meghan’s vindictive ploy of smearing the institution from succeeding.
The monarchy has little power other than to symbolize the pride of the nation. To defame it is to traduce the nation. But now it is not fashionable for any citizen in the West to care about his nation, if it is Western and mostly white. President Trump and his tens of millions of American followers, the workers of America and the self-reliant middle class – consisting of many ethnicities and colors – have pride in their nation; so the priesthood of correct speech declare him and them to be unfit to live.
The worst moral offense, the worst sin according to the dogma of the predominant political religion, is to cast a slur on “non-whiteness”. “Whiteness” can be insulted, despised, slandered, shamed. condemned, yet thou shalt not call it “racism”. But touch, even obliquely, on the subject of non-whiteness, and – whether you are white or not – you are reveling in your power, you are gloatingly oppressing your eternal black victims, you are a “racist” and a “white supremacist”.
In this era of our Western decay, you cannot say or imply anything more harmful, more destructive, more indefensible, more indelibly smearing, than that he or she, or a commercial company, or an institution, is “racist”. And that is what Prince Harry and his wife have chosen to do to the British monarchy.
In truth, no one could be less race-prejudiced than Queen Elizabeth II. The pride she takes in the British Commonwealth of Nations over which she presides, her genuine affection for its peoples of many cultures and colors, have been manifest throughout her reign. (The issue of race which the complaining couple raised was “concerning”, the Queen said, and would be “addressed by the family privately”.)
John Nolte writes at Breitbart:
Harry and Meghan appear to be appealing to the worst people in the world. You know, now that I think about it, in the end, the interview might be a success of sorts. The duo’s goal wasn’t so much to appeal to the masses but to appeal to the world’s wretched elites who consider self-confession, narcissism, race-baiting, and playing the victim the coin of their appalling realm. By behaving in such an appalling way, Harry and Meghan were signaling to the corporate media, Big Tech, and left-wing Hollywood — Hey, we are one of you. Let us in. These days, if you successfully do get in, it doesn’t matter if we the people loathe you — you are in and the game will be rigged inside the velvet bubble to ensure an endless supply of unearned riches, awards, and boot-licking.
Harry and Meghan are powerless except as pieces in the class of “the world’s wretched elites”, now all-powerful having captured the American republic.
It is a thing to wonder at: that the very wealthy who have the most real power – over the financial institutions, the biggest corporations, the mass news media, the means of communication, the entertainment industry, the curricula of schools and universities – have persuaded the poor, the illiterate, the homeless, the displaced, the criminal, the demented, the unemployed and unemployable to vote their party into government.
So this is not Marxism. Though it is as bad as Marxism.
China is Marxist: in theory, the workers govern China. In the West, the New Left abandoned faith in the proletariat as the ” revolutionary class”, and substituted the Lumpenproletariat – the underclass that Marx despised, the Third Worlders, the non-white nations, the “wretched of the Earth” as Frantz Fanon called them.
It could be called Neo-Marxism, except that no revolution is actually expected. The wretched are to be kept wretched.
But how, in the long run, will it profit the rulers to destroy the workers and the productive middle-class?
Terrorism triumphant 96
So the Democrats have acquired total power. They used every method of cheating in the elections that their criminal minds could think of, and they encouraged their supporters to use terrorism.
It all worked for them. So they won the presidency, and hold a majority in both houses of Congress. And the Supreme Court was complaisant about it, a majority of the justices refusing to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the proceedings. (See also here and here.)
The anti-American terrorism movement, aka the New Left, has been working to this end – the securing of total power – since 1968.
Michael Anton writes at Law & Liberty:
The biological son of one of the villains of [the Weather Underground terrorist organization] Kathy Boudin [jailed for life for murder], and the adopted son of two others, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn [both now academics “in good standing”], is now the elected District Attorney of San Francisco County. …
Chesa Boudin differs from his parents, biological and adoptive, in one respect only: rather than fighting the system to inflict harm, create chaos, and do evil, he puts the system to work toward those ends. It’s not just that Boudin works to make everyday life more awful by refusing to enforce what he dismisses as mere “quality of life” (e.g., open drug use and public defecation) and “victimless” (e.g., burglary and auto theft) crimes, so that San Francisco now has the highest property crime rates and arguably the worst quality of life of any big city in the nation. Boudin is also against using the powers of his office to go after what even he is forced to admit are non-trivial offenses.
On his second day in office, the brand new radical-chic DA fired his seven most-experienced prosecutors because they were too good at their jobs. Two weeks later, he ordered his office never again to request cash bail for any offense, guaranteeing that dangerous criminals would roam the streets and that many would never face trial for their crimes. Earlier this year, a parolee plowed a stolen car into two pedestrians, killing both. The “driver”—Troy Ramon McAllister—had been arrested by the SFPD five times in the prior eight months, only to be released without charges on Boudin’s orders every single time.
As Boudin has redefined his role, it is no longer to convict criminals but to further “social justice”. He favors babying the violent with so-called “restorative justice”. It’s unclear what, exactly, “restorative justice” entails; it’s easier to say what it’s not: punishment or deterrence. Early in Boudin’s tenure, after two (nonwhite) young men assaulted an elderly man (also nonwhite) who was collecting cans to recycle, the SFPD did its job and arrested the assailants. The DA, though, declined to press charges. This pattern has since been repeated enough times—including, most recently, the homicide of an 84-year-old—that local media and the intelligentsia realize they can no longer ignore it. And so, to cope, they blame … “white supremacy” and Trump.
Boudin is hardly alone in his anti-anti-crime fervor. Indeed, we may say that the full consolidation and institutionalization of “The Sixties” is happening only now, as “prosecutors” all over America, elected with Soros money, eliminate bail, empty jails, refuse to prosecute nonviolent offenses, undercharge violent ones, replace punishment with “counseling,” and racialize enforcement (and non-enforcement), all the while vindictively hectoring the law-abiding over trivialities. In most American big cities, and in an increasing number of Blue precincts, government does not effectively protect life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. It rather works—from the same ideological zeal that inspired the Weathermen—to make people vulnerable, afraid, and miserable. …
When before has an entire ruling class sided with the forces of evil, ponying up billions to fuel the fire, all the while preening over its superior morality for supporting death and destruction? …
The answer, so far as I know, is never. The very idea is unthinkable without the mainstreaming of the Weather ideology. … On September 11th, 2001—the very day of an event another Weather Underground terrorist could finally see clearly as “kindred” to her own activities—Ayers, close pal of a future president, was quoted in the New York Times saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”
That “feeling” has infused subsequent generations—not least because of the extent to which Weather ideology was allowed to take over not just elite academia but, more sinisterly, schools of education, through which it has taught and continues to teach generations of high school students to hate their country. …
Violence helped the left assert or consolidate power over institutions throughout the land. Violence defanged law enforcement from coast to coast (“defund the police”), yielded an avalanche of public and private money (corporate America pledged more than $1.6 billion to BLM in 2020 alone), and an outpouring of official sympathy to organizations and individuals fomenting violence (the future vice president of the United States intoned last September that it was “critically important” that the riots “protests” continue). …
Most disturbing of all, 2020 may have been the first election in American history—certainly the first national one—in which violence attracted rather than repelled votes. It used to be taken as axiomatic in American politics that law-and-order issues favor Republicans. This is, apparently, no longer the case. Millions have become so convinced of their own and/or the surrounding society’s inexpungable guilt that, to assuage their consciences, must vote against order and life as a way to expiate sin.
Perhaps the supreme moment of 2020 was the sight, in Washington, D.C.’s richest and most liberal suburb, of a mass of overclass winners bowing and begging forgiveness from a group of people none of them had ever harmed. The clear—and only—visible distinction between the penitent and the righteous was demographic. Both groups fervently believe in Manichean wokeness; the only difference is that the righteous feel not guilty but aggrieved. They want revenge. This, let’s call it, Dom-Sub coalition is the heart of the modern Democratic Party, and is a direct legacy of the Weather Underground and New Left insistence that America and Americans (or to be more precise, a certainly part thereof) are irredeemably evil. …
In today’s America, capital—economic no less than political and social—is openly aligned with the hard left. It used to be wary of the left’s more radical elements, muttering empty dodges about “not condoning but understanding” violence. Now capital doesn’t merely understand violence; it underwrites it. Elite opinion, power, and money are on the side of—downright encourage—rioting, looting, arson and death, insisting that the resultant turmoil is necessary redress for past and present grievance. …
The urgent practical questions for statesman and citizen alike are: how much political violence is being committed right now? And by whom? …
The answer is obvious enough: a lot, and the left.
It is Donald Trump’s Republican Party (not the Republican Party that consistently undermined and sabotaged him) that is now the party of the American worker, has been since 2016, and continues to be. And Donald Trump’s Republican Party is the party of genuinely peaceful protest. And, of course, of freedom. His party’s peaceful protests will be called “terrorism” by the Left.
Leftism is the enemy of freedom, the destroyer of humankind. The Left will continue to call its violent “protests” – actually terrorist attacks – “peaceful”.
Leftism is terrorism.
Is resistance futile? 38
As more and more information emerges on how wide and deep and zealous the opposition to President Trump was throughout his four years in office, it becomes more and more astonishing that he was able to accomplish anything at all, let alone the enormous amount that he did.
He was still president and head of the executive branch of government when agents provocateurs led a few of his supporters in a raid on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 – so that the Democrats could accuse him of inciting an insurrection. Yet none of the officials who worked under him and in theory for him did anything at all to counter the resulting onslaught against him by the legislative branch, including his second impeachment by the House and the farce of a trial by the Senate.
Even his vice president, Mike Pence, who seemed exceptionally loyal, has been exposed as a Swamp denizen.
William B. Allen writes at American Greatness:
Where was Trump’s national security team, and what counsel did they provide? The gravity of this obvious lacuna should instantly appear to anyone who considers this was a national security event of the greatest significance …
That it was a national security event is apparent from the immediate and since daily repeated descriptions of the riot as an attempted “insurrection” or “coup’. It is also apparent what protocols prevail in such an event: a national security team exists precisely to appraise and respond to such threats.
But where was FBI Director Christopher Wray? Where was the director of national intelligence? Where was the director of homeland security? Where was the attorney general? Where was the secretary of defense? Where was the director of central intelligence? Were they gathered in the White House within 30 minutes of the development of an event that lasted for hours? What counsel did they give? Were they rebuffed by the president? If the president were guilty of criminal negligence (a “high misdemeanor”), here would be the irrefutable proof of the fact.
At no point … since the events of January 6 has this question been raised in a publicly visible forum. It stands to reason that it should have been raised by virtue of the clear fact that the president’s conduct has been repeatedly described as “criminally negligent”. This would have been a credible charge of misconduct that could have supported impeachment. That such a charge was not filed, and such questions not posed, indicates the high likelihood that to pursue the inquiry on that line would have proved embarrassing—and even condemning—for the officials involved and for those pursuing the impeachment on the weak and inappropriate grounds of “inciting an insurrection”.
One is forced to think that an obvious path to secure conviction was not pursued solely because it could not be sustained. If that is so, however, it also means that something far more significant happened. Namely, the president was not in control of the government.
The Democrats’ enormous exaggeration of the danger in the raid, their determination to make it seem that Donald Trump had tried to overthrow the legislative branch of government and that he is the leader of some 74 million “white supremacist terrorists” actively threatening American “democracy” – and therefore equivalent, they imply, to an alien enemy – gives them the pretext to take every step they can think of to make it impossible for him, or anyone like him, ever to come to power again. They will destroy him personally by any means they can, and make it criminal to be on his side.
And they are destroying all his accomplishments. Every problem, domestic and foreign, that he solved, they are returning to its problematic condition. Everything he saved from ruin, they are ruining.
William Levin writes at American Thinker:
The Democrats are pursuing a multi-prong strategy to cement a permanent majority. To accomplish the goal requires upending the constitutional design. Until the scope of this effort is seen in its entirety, it can proceed in the shadows.
It has six astonishing elements:
-
- Enable Congress to determine who can run for President,
- Eliminate the Electoral College without amending the Constitution,
- Override the states’ constitutionally mandated authority to determine presidential election rules,
- Grant statehood to the District of Columbia by statute,
- Rewrite the First Amendment to limit political speech, and
- Enable open border immigration through executive agreement instead of Congressional action.
Taken together, the program represents a comprehensive challenge to representative democracy. …
Right. It is they who want to end democracy in America. As usual, they accuse their opponents of the wickedness they themselves really are plotting and doing.
Two more articles at American Greatness explain what is happening.
Christopher Roach writes:
Trump thought if he was a loyal American running for president, it would not be possible the CIA and FBI would wiretap him and destroy his supporters’ lives in the process. Similarly, he thought he could talk to foreign leaders or make changes to executive branch policy, and those subordinate to him would do what they were told.
His supporters thought elections mattered, and that they had a right to protest when those elections appeared fraudulent.
But he and they were wrong. Those expectations were aroused by advertisement. They are advertised in the Constitution and its Amendments. But the reality is, as always, different:
The rules, procedures, and priorities of the bureaucrats determine which laws get enforced and which ones don’t … [and] which companies, donors, and groups are entirely exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else.
In other words, these are the real laws, determining what is permitted and what is forbidden. … The mandarin class that writes and interprets them, decides when a riot is “mostly peaceful” or a dangerous “insurrection”. They determine when democracy means the opposite of democracy.
Dan Gelernter writes:
The Left’s hatred of Trump is merely a symptom of their guiding philosophy, which is … gradually to exclude people from government. The Left is in favor of any action that will expand the authority of bureaucrats by taking decisions out of the hands of citizens.
With the coronavirus, the Left is beside itself with glee: This is the first crisis since 9/11 broad enough to make possible a fundamental transformation of American society. …
The reason coronavirus so delights today’s Left is that the public response to their power grab has been overwhelmingly docile: The numbers of deaths are vastly below historic health panics, even with generous inflation via guidelines encouraging doctors to record anyone who previously had the virus as having died from it.
Even so, the government was able to lock people in their homes for a “two-week period” that turned out to be roughly a year, destroy much of the hospitality sector of the economy, force people to cover their faces in public as though living under a secular sharia, and, perhaps best of all, they got neighbors to snitch on neighbors and children to report their parents when these edicts weren’t followed.
It has been a bonanza. The everyday American citizen will always remember 2020 as a painful, terrible, soul-crushing year. For the Left, that makes it one of the best years on record. It is one of those great years in which they changed how Americans live….
They need only to cement this victory by making those changes permanent. …
The Left wouldn’t want you to think that the danger has lessened. This is why the Biden Administration suggested that social distancing and mask-wearing will continue to be vital, even once the entire population is inoculated. They don’t want the pandemic to go away: A successful Biden Administration is not one in which coronavirus disappears, it is one in which Americans accept wearing masks for the rest of their lives. …
These are incremental steps on the road to tyranny: They don’t necessarily increase public safety—they may harm it. But they do give the government more power, and that is the important thing, the operative goal. Europe is a few steps ahead of America in its gradual dissolution of democracy, but America will follow just as fast as the public is willing to tolerate.
Tolerate the process of decline and fall?
Is there a choice?
Hasn’t resistance proved futile?
A way to escape the tyranny 145
… and not lose America?
There are two American nations owning the same country. One wants individual freedom and equality under the law; the other wants authoritarian gynocracy with a caste system graded by skin color. Each loathes and fears the other. Each wants to be free of the other. But territorial separation is not possible.
Is there a solution?
Selwyn Duke thinks there is. He writes about it at Canada Free Press:
With a stolen election, stolen culture, stolen courts and stolen dreams, many Americans are realizing that rule by the Left, absolutely corrupt even without absolute power, is unthinkable. Talk of secession, something continually entertained in various states throughout history, is again in the air. The problem is that for the most part, we’ve been supinely submissive in the face of burgeoning leftist tyranny. So it would help if there were something between secession and our current slouching toward servitude. And there is.
Too many conservatives are also waxing defeatist, saying “The republic is dead; our freedoms are gone.” And, yes, if we continue operating inside the box and being “conservative” — as in status-quo oriented — we can kiss our (remaining) liberties goodbye. But the Left isn’t constrained by any box, except what’s physically and politically possible; it doesn’t abide by rules, laws, social codes or conventions except when convenient. So why should we remain in any box … ?
Embracing Mao’s sentiment that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”, the Left trades in violence, violence done to political opponents and to our culture, history, heroes, Constitution and just liberties. Now having seized power in government’s executive and legislative branches via the violence of electoral theft, the Left aims to use that power to become autocratic. As to how we should respond, remember:
Only power negates power.
The Left has been able to steal a national election (and some down-ballot seats, no doubt) via massive vote fraud in, largely, a handful of big Democrat-run cities. Yet despite all the electoral theft, President Trump still won half the states, some by wide margins. It is these states where power should be exercised.The power I reference is what Thomas Jefferson called the “rightful remedy” for all federal usurpation of states’ domain: nullification. This is the process whereby authorities simply ignore federal dictates, whether handed down by Congress, a bureaucracy or the courts.
There’s nothing unprecedented about nullification. Leftists engage in it continually. For example, their localities often ignore federal drug or immigration laws, and more than a score of states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005.
Only, leftists don’t call it “nullification” — they just do it. In contrast, conservatives busy themselves conserving the status quo even though it’s leftist-born and generally abide by even unconstitutional federal laws, mandates and court rulings because “this is the way things are done”.
This said, we have seen some pushback, with county sheriffs in recent times refusing to enforce irrational China virus restrictions and some opposition to anti-Second Amendment proposals. But this effort must become widespread and organized — “Nullification!” must become a rallying cry.
To this end, we need a nullification movement. When state officials, from governor to assemblymen and senators, run for office, the first and last question must be: Will you vow to nullify all unjust federal dictates? If they hem and haw at all, they must be immediately disqualified.
In addition, nullification-disposed states should make a compact with one another so that we can enjoy the strength numbers bring.
In reality, nullification … should have been pursued long ago; the federal government has, after all, been trampling states’ powers for at least the better part of a century, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. … We now require a ton of cure.
The cure of nullification is the obvious next step for anyone serious about combating the burgeoning leftist tyranny. We’ve no other recourse. …
Reasoned argumentation only works with those who’ll yield to reason (the Left won’t).
Constitutional constraints only matter to those who respect laws and national contracts (the Left doesn’t).
Appealing to courts only bears fruit when judges have a sense of justice and duty and the guts to act rightly even when pariah status results (most don’t).
Making this more tragically comical still is that when we seek redress for federal tyranny, we expect relief from the federal government’s own judicial branch!
This didn’t help us with the 2020 election, which the Left got away with stealing. Moreover, it knows it can not only replicate the theft in the future but can expand it; thus have the Democrats introduced a bill taking mail-in voting nationwide. … The states can just pass on it. …
The Democrats can hobble border enforcement so that they can further destabilize our country and import more future voters — and Texas can secure its border itself. Let the left-wing, black-robed lawyers issue their contrary “opinions” as we know they will. My response would be a paraphrase of the paraphrase of Andrew Jackson: “The judges have made their decision. Now let them enforce it.”
In sum: The power of the federal government would be nullified by conservative populist states ignoring federal laws their own majorities don’t like and don’t vote for.
But the conservative populist states are the rule-of-law states. Would it not be a betrayal of their own principle to do it?
Not if the federal government has abandoned the rule of law and become a dictatorship. The Democrats now in power have amply demonstrated their contempt for any law that stands in their way. They have gotten away with conspiring against an elected president, perjury in court, cheating in an election, encouraging violent riots. They have lost the right to be obeyed.
So yes, defiance, or “nullification”, might be a solution. It is the practical sort of solution that evolves in response to the exigencies of conditions (like the constitutional republic of the United States), rather than the sort conceived by theorists and arbitrarily imposed (like socialism).
Then what might a Leftist federal government do about it? Would it use the US army to enforce its will?
We suspect that the gang in power in D.C. now would not hesitate to use the army. They are already doing so in the federal capital. And the Democratic Party’s radical female novices in Congress almost certainly would as soon as they’ve risen to some seniority. Or even before.
What then? Civil war?
*
Note added three days later: The North Dakota legislature, alarmed by Biden’s extravagant issue of executive orders and their effects, is considering exercising its right of nullification.