LRC Blog

Presidents’ Day


Today is Presidents’ Day, a celebratory commemoration of American statolatry by the regime nomenklatura of those political figureheads who have reached the pinnacle on the pyramid of power. Two essential essays are must-reading to provide the proper spirit of disinterested reflection and veneration on this solemn day. One is by Lew Rockwell; the second is by the late Ralph Raico.

3:28 pm on February 17, 2020

Happy Dead Presidents Day!

And a hat tip to my two favorites, William Henry Harrison (one month in office) and John Tyler.

3:22 pm on February 17, 2020

The Koch-Soros Foreign Policy Project: ‘Restraint’ Or Deception?

12:26 pm on February 17, 2020

Blue Marlin Good, White Marlin Bad

My nominee for the most asinine act of political correctness, “wokeness,” virtue signaling, and anti-white race hatred for 2020 goes to the women’s slut-gossip rag, Cosmopolitan magazine.  It appears that “Cosmo” sent a photographer to photograph one of the female contestants in “The Bachelor” TV show and promised to put her (and him) on the cover.  The ragmag reneged, however, after discovering that the contestant, Victoria Fuller, once modeled some clothing for an environmental organization that is concerned about the endangerment of white and blue marlins in the world’s oceans.  Victoria’s “sin” was to have her picture taken with both “Blue Lives Matter” and “White Lives Matter” t-shirts, referring of course to the fish.

She has now been officially “cancelled” by the communist cancel culture in America and has even groveled with an apology.  I suppose she would be back in their good graces if she would only start waring a “White Lives Don’t Matter” t-shirt.

 

12:25 pm on February 17, 2020

The Cancer of Peak Progressivism


Victor Davis Hanson’s diagnostic cataloging of the criminal insanity provoking a plunging devolution into chaotic nihilism is the strongest case I have encountered of why the country desperately needs a national enema, a therapeutic purging of all infectious Progressivism from the bowels of the body politic. Progressivism is not an ideology, it is an insidious intestinal cancer eating out our substance as a civilization. Know the anamnesis or medical history of how this statist scourge developed over time in order to immunize yourself and combat it.

9:45 am on February 17, 2020

Franz Jägerstätter and Sophie Scholl


Edward Curtin’s soul wrenching and evocative “Painting A True Christ: A Review of Terrence Malik’s Film “A Hidden Life,” tells the powerful story of Franz Jägerstätter and his defiance of the German National Socialist regime under Hitler. It immediately brings to mind the searing story of Sophie Scholl, her brother Hans, and their best friend Christoph Probst as told in Sophie Scholl, The Final Days, the movie featured above.

Watch this true story based on the courage of one single girl who had the faith and fortitude to STAND AGAINST the Nazi Reich while in Munich. Then read “The White Rose: A Lesson in Dissent,” the acclaimed Jacob G. Hornberger article on this heroic trio of martyrs.

Curtin, in his review, believes this dilemma of conscience has indeed come to America. Will we each now have to face the same brutal system Franz and Sophie did? If that does happen, what will we do when the time comes to speak for what is right? Each one of us must examine if we have the strength to practice what we preach. Sophie’s faith in the Biblical Jesus gave her courage and the will to defy the powers of darkness even to the end. What will fortify, inspire and empower us to defy and speak truth to power at the cost of our lives and integrity?

Both Franz Jägerstätter and Sophie Scholl were executed by beheading for their “crimes” against the Nazi terror state.

What happens when freedom and adhering to one’s most inner-most conscience becomes a crime?

8:46 am on February 17, 2020

Steve Bannon: Bloomberg Has a Personal Vendetta Against Trump



Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg, and Bill Clinton

2020 is shaping up to be a possible repeat of 1992 — a vicious campaign of betrayal, revenge and seething hate — similar to that vindictive race between George H. W. Bush, Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton.

10:04 pm on February 16, 2020

Why Did Pelosi Tear Up Trump’s Speech?

Pelosi now says that she tore up Trump’s speech to get attention. This is her second explanation, and it does not gibe with her earlier one, which was that she did it because the alternatives were worse. What did she want to do, spit on it? Set it afire? Walk off the stage? Turn her back? Interrupt Trump? Unsheath a knife or a scissors?

My instantaneous reaction to this latest statement of hers is that she’s lying (making it up), because she could have given a speech afterward pinpointing the errors she claims Trump made on every page. She made this explanation up after the fact. She wasn’t thinking that at the time. She either pre-planned it or else did it in a pique of emotion. I believe the latter is true. Here’s why. She said afterward that her tearing it up was better than the alternatives. The implication was that she wanted to do or say something more violent because she was emotionally distressed at him — angry, and frustrated that she did not have the podium and he did. She couldn’t speak and express her disapproval but he could. She didn’t do it to gain attention to his errors or draw attention to her better ideas, but to let off steam and rain on his parade at the same time.

This much can be granted. Just maybe she did it to divert attention from his speech, which is a little different. But I do not think that she decided “I’ll divert attention from his nonsense. I’ll gain the attention.” No, hers was an act of sabotage, an emotionally-based act, an interference in what is his constitutional obligation, like booing or heckling. Hers was a symbolic act of rejection, certainly clever in that aspect, but clearly not in the spirit of free speech. It was more in the spirit of antifa, that group of fascists who aim to suppress speech they dislike. She’s in tune with that.

I do not claim to be able to read someone’s mind, but I do think we can put 2 and 2 together, and we can tell when something is not quite right or sounds phony. This sounds phony to me, an ex post rationale to make herself sound more rational about the whole affair. And it does not square with what she said earlier about the alternatives she was avoiding. She’s been mightily peeved at Trump for months and months. They did not shake hands. She barely introduced him. His speech was on her turf, but it was beyond her control. She was frustrated at having no control. Not only that, this speech did not conform at all to the usual soporific State of the Union.

It was underlying spite, petty ill-will, and hatred toward Trump built up over many months and a number of clashes with him combined with anger and frustration on the spot that motivated Pelosi, not a calm, cool and collected political decision. And she as much as admitted this right after the event. When asked why she tore it up, she replied “It was the courteous thing to do, considering the alternative.”

7:46 pm on February 16, 2020

Several Recommended Articles

Today’s American Thinker has several very disturbing articles.

Angela Merkel and the Destruction of German Democracy” reveals Merkel’s evil activities.

A truly disturbing article is “Criminalizing Dissent“. It’s about the persecution of a student at UMass, Amherst, by mob and by a leftist instructor who is using law to her advantage, so far, that is. In the end, she’ll get her comeuppance and the University will pay through the nose. One comment after this article is pertinent:

“Yet again we see it. In The Coming of the Third Reich (2003), historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) ‘organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.’ To express dissent from Nazi positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a Nazi, or one was silent (and fearful).

“Today’s fascists call themselves ‘anti-fascists.’ Just like the Nazis, they are totalitarian: they are determined not to allow their opponents to murmur the slightest whisper of dissent. Forcibly suppressing the speech of someone with whom one disagrees is a quintessentially fascist act.”

The third article is “DC LAW“, and it provides insight to the Roger Stone case. That story is still developing: “More than 1,100 former prosecutors and other DOJ officials call on Attorney General Bill Barr to resign” reads a CNN headline. This letter has obvious political roots, which render it as devoid of any real legal bearing on the Stone case.

There is NO case for Barr resigning over the Stone matter, none whatsoever, but prosecutors and DOJ officials do not always need a genuine case in order to create one. They are experienced at fabrication. This letter is but another instance of the perpetual motion to thwart Trump and his agenda. Stone’s case is an obvious miscarriage of justice, from his staged pre-dawn arrest down to his mistrial, chaired by a prejudiced judge who should be removed from the bench. The sentencing recommendation was utterly excessive and was rightly brought into question.

5:14 pm on February 16, 2020

Viktor Suvorov and the Soviet Offensive Plans Controversy


In an earlier LRC Blog I referred to Viktor Suvorov’s scholarly work regarding the role of Hitler and Stalin in beginning the Second World War. Suvorov’s revisionist writing has largely fostered what has been described as the Soviet Offensive Plans Controversy. Wikipedia has a concise summary article that outlines this major international academic debate among historians of WWII. As with all Wikipedia entry’s, it should be viewed as a preliminary initial source guiding researchers to wider, more in-death materials, and not the final authority:

The Soviet offensive plans controversy is a debate among historians whether Soviet leader Joseph Stalin planned to attack Axis forces in Eastern Europe prior to Operation Barbarossa. Most historians agree that the geopolitical differences between the Soviet Union and the Axis made war inevitable, and that Stalin had made extensive preparations for war and exploited the military conflict in Europe to his advantage. Viktor Suvorov has argued that Stalin planned to attack Hitler from behind while Germany fought the Allies, and Barbarossa was a preemptive strike by Hitler. Many historians have written in response to Suvorov’s views. Gabriel Gorodetsky and David Glantz authored books debunking his claims.[1][2][3] Suvorov received some support from Valeri DanilovJoachim HoffmannMikhail Meltyukhov, and Vladimir Nevezhin[4][5]

The brilliant Ron Unz also has an excellent summary article on the controversy, relating his personal quest for truth in this matter.

Here are two of Suvorov’s major books which outline and summarize his researchIcebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? and Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II.  Published first in the eighties, Icebreaker was the first in Suvorov’s series of historical books. By the year 2000, it was translated into 27 languages and published more than 100 times. Icebreaker is a book about communist preparation and execution (however poorly, but not for the lack of trying) of the biggest crime in the history of mankind, World War II.

(more…)

10:48 am on February 16, 2020

A Sends B a Letter Through the Mail; Who Owns That Letter?

Dear Richard:

I agree with you entirely.

I would also extrapolate to snail mail.

Suppose I send you a letter on a piece of paper. Who, now, owns it? I think you do. In effect, I made you a gift of a piece of paper with my writing on it.

Best regards,

Walter

(more…)

2:41 am on February 16, 2020

Can a Person be a Net Taxpayer, and Still be a Member of the Ruling Class?

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 1:13 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: net taxpayers in ruling elite

Dear Walter,

In your view, can you be a net taxpayer but also be in the ruling elite? Or does paying taxes automatically exclude you from the elite?

Jonathan

(more…)

2:39 am on February 16, 2020

Punish the Innocent?

Dear Tim:

I don’t see the problem with (pure) privatization. PG&E was always a highly regulated “private” company.

I think only guilty people should be jailed, not innocent people, in order to keep others honest.

Best regards,

Walter

(more…)

2:36 am on February 16, 2020

The Best Enemies Money Can Buy: Antony C. Sutton


I want to draw the attention of LRC readers to focus intently on the exemplary scholarly work of Antony C. Sutton. His outstanding body of research has fascinated and intrigued me since first discovering it in 1972.

Sutton was one of the 20th Century’s most prodigious and incisive scholars of how the United States and its Western European allies built the Soviet Union’s military industrial complex.  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a murderous parasitic regime responsible for the deaths of over sixty million of its own subjects by its state security forces, and over twenty seven million persons killed during the Second World War.

This later devastating conflict was enabled by the duplicitous actions of Germany’s National Socialist Fuehrer Adolf Hitler and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and his Politburo of killers as described in Victor Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II.

In 1920, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises demonstrated in his path-braking article, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” that all attempts to establish socialism would not work, for reasons of informational efficiency. Because of the absence of a market-based pricing system of profit and loss, socialism could not perform the necessary economic calculation to survive.

The Soviets turned to economic parasitism through exclusive monopolistic trade deals with western corporations, espionage, theft, and expropriation of technology from the West. It was Soviet parasitism and the sale, transfer and theft of technology from the West which built the Soviet military-industrial complex.

Virtually the same complicit and compliant corporate and financial interests who enabled Nazi Germany’s warfare state, were responsible for creating this regime of terror. This treasonous activity continues today. The authoritative volumes by Antony C. Sutton below definitively document these activities essential to understanding the Cold War struggle between East and West.

In addition, consult the following:

  • From Major Jordan’s Diaries — Book by George Racey Jordan.
  • Red Carpet: The Connection Between the Kremlin and America’s Most Powerful Businessmen – Armand Hammer, Averell Harriman, Cyrus Eaton, David Rockefeller, Donald Kendall — Book by Joseph Finder
  • Techno-Bandits: How the Soviets Are Stealing America’s High-Tech Future — Book by Linda Melvern, David Hebditch and Nick Anning
  • Vodka Cola — Book by Charles Levinson
  • East Minus West = Zero: Russia’s Debt to the Western World 862-1962 — Book by Werner Keller

6:31 pm on February 15, 2020

Adam Carolla on Why the Days of Wokeness are Numbered

Some funny clips, but hard to buy his optimism. As long as envy exists, there will always be a desire to use the state in a retributive role.

4:57 pm on February 15, 2020

Matt Gaetz on Why Andrew McCabe Evaded Justice

Lucy holds the football, and Charlie Brown (the average Republican voter) runs up to try to kick it again, only to end up kicking air. More of the swamp at the DOJ needs to be drained? Why hasn’t it? When will Matt Gaetz be drained? Same old sales pitch, Durham will indict someone. Don’t hold your breath.

4:51 pm on February 15, 2020

Tulsi Gabbard: DNC Head Tom Perez Needs to Resign Now

Is Perez incompetent or performing his job just about exactly as the establishment fixers want?

4:44 pm on February 15, 2020

Andrew McCabe Keeps Lying

There is a 39-page official government report that is titled “A Report of Certain Allegations Relating to Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe.” This report finds that in a number of instances that mattered to us the people McCabe lied, including under oath. The report doesn’t use the term “lie”. It uses the words “lacked candor”.

The dissonance here for anyone who prefers truth to lies, including from public employees of ours in sensitive positions that even have been given the power to prosecute liars, is that McCabe hasn’t owned up to his lies. He betrayed his position, those around him and betrayed us.

Now, he’s accusing others, and that’s certainly no good. He’s making up new lies, and he’s pretending that he’s telling the truth.

There is no way for McCabe to redeem himself except by taking responsibility for his lies by admitting them. Instead he’s going in exactly the wrong personal direction by extending his lying. He’s a bitter man now pretending to be on the side of the angels. A recent statement of his:

“And it is unfortunate that having listened to propaganda like Fox News, there’s, you know, there are many people in this country that will believe that forever. I can’t do anything about that, except continue to live and to speak out in the way I’ve tried to do over the last year, to stand up for what I believe in, and to tell the truth, however inconvenient for the president or anybody else.”

McCabe also now blames Trump and the Department of Justice.

But it is entirely accurate to call McCabe a multiple liar on the basis of the report issued by the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice. It ends up as follows:

“We found that, in a conversation with then-Director Comey shortly after the WSJ article was published, McCabe lacked candor when he told Comey, or made statements that led Comey to believe, that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure and did not know who did. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.5 (Lack of Candor – No Oath).

“We also found that on May 9, 2017, when questioned under oath by FBI agents from INSD, McCabe lacked candor when he told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).

“We further found that on July 28, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview, McCabe lacked candor when he stated: (a) that he was not aware of Special Counsel having been authorized to speak to reporters around October 30 and (b) that, because he was not in Washington, D.C., on October 27 and 28, 2016, he was unable to say where Special Counsel was or what she was doing at that time. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).

“We additionally found that on November 29, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview during which he contradicted his prior statements by acknowledging that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ, McCabe lacked candor when he: (a) stated that he told Comey on October 31, 2016, that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ; (b) denied telling INSD agents on May 9 that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ about the PADAG call; and (c) asserted that INSD’s questioning of him on May 9 about the October 30 WSJ article occurred at the end of an unrelated meeting when one of the INSD agents pulled him aside and ased him one or two questions about the article. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).

“Lastly, we determined that as Deputy Director, McCabe was authorized to disclose the existence of the CF Investigation publicly if such a disclosure fell within the “public interest” exception in applicable FBI and DOJ policies generally prohibiting such a disclosure of an ongoing investigation. However, we concluded that McCabe’s decision to confirm the existence of the CF Investigation through an anonymously sourced quote, recounting the content of a phone call with a senior Department official in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership, was clearly not within the public interest exception. We therefore concluded that McCabe’s disclosure of the existence of an ongoing investigation in this manner violated the FBI’s and the Department’s media policy and constituted misconduct.”

To date, there has been no prosecution of McCabe. Officially, the DOJ has now stated that it will not prosecute McCabe.

9:24 am on February 15, 2020

Jordan Peterson: Existentialism via Solzhenitsyn and the Gulag


In this lecture, Peterson explores the dreadful socio-political consequences of the individual inauthentic life: the degeneration of society into nihilism or totalitarianism, often of the most murderous sort, employing as an example the work/death camps of the Soviet Union.

The Gulag Archipelago: A New Foreword by Jordan B. Peterson

(Jordan Peterson: Foreword to The Gulag Archipelago: 50th Anniversary EditionVisual Presentation)

“The Gulag Archipelago is a book by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn about the Soviet forced labor camp system. The three-volume book is a narrative relying on eyewitness testimony and primary research material, as well as the author’s own experiences as a prisoner in a gulag labor camp. Written between 1958 and 1968, it was published in the West in 1973 and, thereafter, circulated in samizdat (underground publication) form in the Soviet Union until its appearance in the Russian literary journal, Novy Mir, in 1989, in which a third of the work was published over three issues. GULag or Gulág is an acronym for the Russian term Glavnoye Upravleniye ispravitelno-trudovyh Lagerey (Главное Управление Исправительно-трудовых Лагерей), or “Chief Administration of Corrective Labour Camps”, the bureaucratic name of the governing board of the Soviet labour camp system, and by metonymy, the camp system itself.

“The original Russian title of the book is Arkhipelag GuLag, the rhyme supporting the underlying metaphor deployed throughout the work. The word archipelago compares the system of labor camps spread across the Soviet Union with a vast “chain of islands”, known only to those who were fated to visit them. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the formation of the Russian Federation, The Gulag Archipelago has been officially published, and it has been included in the high school program in Russia as mandatory reading since 2009.”  —  Wikipedia, cited by Peterson

Khrushchev’s 1956 Secret Speech, ‘On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences,’ Delivered at the Twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

8:13 pm on February 14, 2020

A Two-Man Race

The Democratic nomination today is a two-man race, according to Election Betting Odds (EBO).

In the past week, Sanders has fallen 4.3% to 34.1%, and Bloomberg has risen 8.4% to 32.5%.

No one else is even close. Biden is third at a distant 8.7% chance of winning and Buttigieg is fourth at 8.4%. Warren, at 1% (99-1), is out of contention. Klobuchar (33-1) and Clinton (25-1) are long shots.

These markets show how quickly a candidate can gain or lose favor. At the moment, winning is not a likely prospect for anyone except the two leaders. Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar, and Clinton are currently far behind.

6:25 pm on February 14, 2020

Sanders and Socialist Revolution

In 2016, Bernie Sanders wrote a book “Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In”. He started a political action organization named “Our Revolution”. He updated the book in 2017, titling the new version “Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution”. Sanders is a socialist, he says a democratic socialist. It follows that he wants a socialist revolution to occur in America.

What does Bernie Sanders want his government to do to us Americans? What does a socialist revolution in America look like? In the past, Sanders said he admired Scandinavian socialism.

Socialist Revolution” spells out “The Program of the US Section of the IMT” (International Marxist Tendency). This is not an official or unofficial Bernie Sanders program. He hasn’t endorsed it. He may even say that he’s not that kind of socialist. None of that matters, because this program and that of Sanders both stand for the same kinds of things and their beliefs are rooted in the same fallacies.

Sanders’ socialism is much like that spelled out by Socialist Revolution. Bernie Sanders is Mr. American Socialism at this juncture. His ideas have the same roots in Karl Marx as the IMT. He, like they, speaks of revolution openly and of transforming America. Sanders has praised the world’s socialist countries.
(more…)

4:42 pm on February 14, 2020

Judge Napolitano on the Suspect Roger Stone Case

The jury foreman almost certainly lied to the judge to avoid disqualification. Will there be consequences?

1:39 pm on February 14, 2020

What’s The Correct Libertarian View on Cultural Conservatism?

Letter 1

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 9:41 AM Richard Gaylord  wrote:

if you had to choose between living in a political system that opposed or supported cultural conservatism, which would you choose ie. would you choose to live in a society in which economic freedom was limited or restricted to some extent while personal liberty was not restricted [allowing voluntary acts you don’t approve of like homosexual behavior or drug-taking] or in a society with free market economics but with restrictions on personal behavior?

The mistake I made in my earlier writing, it is now apparent to me, is that I am not only a libertarian but also a cultural conservative. Not only am I concerned with what the law should be, I also live in the moral, cultural, and ethical realm. I was then so astounded by the brilliance of the libertarian vision (Istill am) that I overlooked the fact that I am more than only a libertarian. As both a libertarian and a cultural conservative, I see n o incompatibility between beliefs which are part of these two very different universes of discourse.

(more…)

2:24 am on February 14, 2020

Is There A Right To Vote? Plus, Other Questions About Libertarianism

Letter 1

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 5:17 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: isidewith

Hello Walter, how have you been? It was great seeing our email conversations published on LRC; I hope they helped other people working through the same issues. Thanks for sharing them with the world!

I’m just writing to get more of your thoughts on things. Have you ever taken the quiz on the website ISideWith? On most of the questions I was pretty sure what the libertarian answer was, but on some I wasn’t sure. E.g. I’m not entirely sure whether illegal immigrants should have access to government-subsidized healthcare. A lot of libertarians oppose this but I’m wondering if government should not bar access for the same reason it should not bar access to other public property. This ties in to our article on the ethics of public spending, I suppose.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

(more…)

2:20 am on February 14, 2020

What’s the Correct Libertarian Perspective on Reparations?

Letter 1

From: Tim McGraw

Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:07 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Private Property; the Argument for Privatization

Deserve Has Nothing to Do With It; The Unforgiven

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kjYk2CrQF8

Dear Walter, Dec. 6th, 2019

I enjoyed your book about Private Property until the Reparations chapter.  I don’t believe in reparations. They remind me of child support payments and negroes yelling in the street trying to take my money, even though my ancestors were in Europe while theirs were enslaved in the Americas.

So, I’ll send you your book with my notes on the margins that I wrote as I read it. I did enjoy it. What a fun few weeks it was.

Walter, I don’t think we are going to make it. Us Libertarians had our time. Clint Eastwood and Dr. Ron Paul were the highlights of our society. I see no future for us.

So, to quote another Eastwood movie:

WE SHALL CONTINUE WITH STYLE; EIGER SANCTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vnmugDJDWU

And style is life as far as I’m concerned.

Take care my friend,

Tim McGraw

Healdsburg, CA

(more…)

2:18 am on February 14, 2020

Peas in the Same Pod

While doing some research for an article, I had to do some reading in the 2016 Republican Party platform. I noticed this statement of the Republicans when Obama was the president. It reads almost exactly like something Democrats say today about Trump:

The current Administration has exceeded its constitutional authority, brazenly and flagrantly violated the separation of powers, sought to divide America into groups and turn citizen against citizen. The President has refused to defend or enforce laws he does not like, used executive orders to enact national policies in areas constitutionally reserved solely to Congress, made unconstitutional “recess” appointments to Senate-confirmed positions, directed regulatory agencies to overstep their statutory authority, and failed to consult Congress regarding military action overseas. He has changed what John Adams called “a government of laws and not of men” into just the opposite.

Democrats and Republicans are two peas in the same pod.

9:10 pm on February 13, 2020

Anti-Freedom Virginia Democrats Causing Vexit

From an informed man on the spot:

“…fantastic second amendment rally we had recently in VA. It was an amazing rally. Unfortunately it has not stopped the far left legislature. Once they finished with the second amendment they moved on to the first and are trying to pass legislation that would criminalize certain criticisms of the Governor, Attorney General and Lieutenant Governor. Then yesterday they voted to disenfranchise the voters of the entire state by passing a law that would mandate the states’ electors sent to the electoral college vote for the Presidential candidate that won the national popular vote. It gets worse. I won’t even go into the things they’re planning for our school children. With all that’s happening it looks like our only hope is to Vexit and join West Virginia. Nigel Farage is supporting the movement and I spoke with WV State Delegate Gary Howells office this morning. It looks like the proposal is working its way through the WV legislature (BTW it can be found on the WV State Assembly web page under Resolution HCR #8) . I hope we can pull this off. In the mean time we are forming Militias in the Sanctuary Counties under Article 1 Section 13 of the VA Constitution which I hope will prevent confiscation until we can Vexit. I think it was Mises who said, “No peoples should be held in a political association against their will”.

The West Virginia resolution (HCR #8) builds upon the 1863 resolution by which West Virginia carved itself out of Virginia. It adds the new series of reasons why a new “peaceful partition” is called for. If it passes, it places a referendum before West Virginia voters to accept the departing Virginians into the body politic of the State of West Virginia.

HOWEVER, the last “Whereas” says “Providing that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall give its assent to any county or independent city presently part of the Commonwealth of Virginia having the opportunity and ability to do so.”

Will the Virginia Assembly agree to such a carve-out or secession?

2:05 pm on February 13, 2020

Roger Stone Jury Foreman was a “Trump-Hating Russia Collusion Hoaxer”

And the Obama-appointed judge must have known it.  Judge Napolitano said this morning that this should mandate a new trial at the very least.  So the prosecutors were all Hillary Clinton cronies; the judge is an Obama appointee/suck-up; and the jury foreman was a serious Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer.  Further evidence that the federal judiciary is thoroughly corrupt at the top (and much of the bottom as well).

12:00 pm on February 13, 2020

Socialism and Spite

Democrats have only two things: socialism and spite. The socialism comes full-strength or diluted. The spite stems from their election loss to Trump and their own moral indecency which has no apparent lower bound.

For Democrats, spite is a political tool, used at every turn in a quest for favor with voters. Among Democrats, revenge, vindictiveness and hatred run rampant to thwart Trump.

Roger Stone’s sentencing is a case in point. Elizabeth Warren demands that Barr resign over the Stone sentencing. How much hatred there is in demanding that he be sentenced to prison for 7-9 years.

The entire case from start to finish reeks.

It began with a staged FBI raid designed by evil minds.

The case went before a prejudiced judge and a biased jury. The anti-Trump prosecutors went for the jugular.

This travesty of justice and government doesn’t stop there. Both Pelosi and Schumer, the top Democrat leaders in Congress, “Call for Investigation Into Reduced Sentencing Recommendation for Roger Stone”. This pair of clowns continues to feign, to put on a straight face and pretend that Trump and Barr have done something wrong or even impeachable again.

9:26 am on February 13, 2020

Sanders Weak in Deep South

Bloomberg (27.8%) gained on Sanders (35.5%) in the last 24 hours. In prediction markets, Bloomberg has wrested the lead from Sanders across the Deep South: AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, and FL.

8:17 am on February 13, 2020