Principals and stakeholders, you need to understand this: Like war, business, and these senseless murders, it’s all about YOUR “OODA Loops” and YOUR ability to interrupt/stop/change your adversary’s/competitor’s OODA Loops.
Col. John Boyd’s Decision Making Process (Observation, Orientation, Decision, and ACTION) or the “OODA Loop” lies in the very heart of this issue, and ignoring it will only exacerbate the problem.
This is partly due to the fact that the bad guys initiate their planning well in advance of the attack: that is to say, they are already completing numerous OODA Loops prior to their attack. This could be hours, days, weeks, even months, or years in the making. The point here is that there are lethal OODA Loops being planned and closed in this process; they are planning, are you?
This is true across the spectrum of violence from the individual to the army, to the nation-state; it’s universal. While this article is focused on the San Jose murders, one could easily copy and paste with different times, places, and events, but the outcome would remain the same for ignoring this reality.
From the article: “The sheriff’s office is next door to the rail yard”.
Let that sink in – and NO, it’s NOT a critique of police response times, tactics, policies, or procedures – it’s about reality. It’s about time, distance, will, the right tools, and sufficient training. Again, it’s all about OODA Loops.
You have probably heard people offhandedly comment that “When you have seconds to live the police are only minutes away” but what you need to understand is that this is a truism – it’s not a joke.
You really can’t.
I have been training military and LEO for most of my adult life so I want to be perfectly clear upfront, none of the below is a criticism of LEOs.
I understand the job and its political games, so I have nothing but empathy for them.
Instead, it’s a criticism of the political system and people that as Professor of Yale Law School Stephen Carter stated “…that takes such bizarre delight in creating new crimes for the cops to enforce. “
Yesterday the D.C. Auditor came back saying that the Police ‘acted recklessly’ in the shooting death of Deon Kay.
Heartfelt sympathies go out to the police under this policy/leadership.
It sucks working for people who don’t understand the reality of a lethal force encounter. People who don’t understand how little time is available for the right decision, how dynamic and fluid situations are in real life vs on paper, in the book, or in some scripted scenario/video trainer.
While this is indeed “an alternative…” it certainly won’t be applied in a way that “preserves life.” I can’t imagine a more ridiculous statement in regards to firearms and the credible use of lethal force.
It set’s the public up with unrealistic expectations.
Firearms are NOT a less than lethal option, anyone who tells you different is ignorant, run – don’t walk away.
The Philadelphia Police Department is struggling to hire new recruits for the force as it is facing a severe understaffing problem and rising crime rates.
6ABC reported dozens of new recruits report for training every three months, but the last class graduated in December and the next class is not slated to start until May. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #5 President John McNesby told 6ABC it has been a perfect storm of circumstances that have led to the current shortage, with many officers taking early retirement and few training classes because of COVID-19.
“And you got to remember that once you go into the academy, it takes you about 10 months to finish. So, we’re not looking at putting any boots on the ground until maybe next Spring,” McNesby said.
There is also a new policy that requires all applicants to be living in Philadelphia before they start at the police academy.
“Nobody is going to move to Philadelphia hoping that they get a job. They want to make sure they secure employment, then move in,” McNesby explained.
All of this has led prospective recruits to seek law enforcement jobs outside the city. This comes at a time when police morale is low nationwide amid incidents that have lead to riots. In addition to experiencing rioting shortly after George Floyd’s murder, Philadelphia experienced another wave of rioting after an officer shot a black man who charged at him with a knife. Despite the body camera video showing the officer acted in self-defense, rioting and looting struck the city for two days.
The Los Angeles Police Department also has fewer officers than what it is budgeted for, again because of early retirements and resignations. Its budget was also cut last year, but Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) just proposed a 3 percent increase in funding for the upcoming fiscal year, owing in part due to the city’s rise in crime.
Portland, which experienced almost nightly riots last year, saw many of its police officers leave the force, citing lack of support from the city, being overworked, and having better opportunities elsewhere. All of this is occurring while certain crime rates have reached new highs.
In the last couple days, the JoeBama mis-administration has trotted out the old, Marxist trope about “needs”. Specifically, “Who, in God’s name, needs a weapon that can hold 100 rounds, or 40 rounds, or 20 rounds?”
Sound familiar? Maybe because it’s derived, at least ideologically, from: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Same thinking. Same non sequitur. Same Marxist depravity.
Nowhere, in the US government’s purview is it to determine what I need or do not need. That is for me, alone, to decide. And, it is certainly outside the jurisdiction of “government” to attempt to frame my rights in terms of some political/bureaucratic arbitrary assessment of my needs. I won’t be having that. We won’t be having that conversation. And, if that’s your start point, then we have reached an impasse.
Let’s examine this philosophical non-starter through the lens of any other right. If the government can determine your need to keep and bear a weapon loaded with 20 rounds, what else do they get to control via the “needs argument”?
- Does your family really need two cars?
- Do you really need to earn more than minimum wage?
- Do you need air conditioning in the summer?
- Do you really need to eat 3 meals a day?
- Do you really need to exercise all your rights or can you give a few up for the “common good”?
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit (formerly Estate/Property) do not limit your exercise of rights on the basis of need. Nor, does the Bill of Rights contain any measure of limit on the free exercise of any of the rights outlined therein. If we assume – as we rightly should – that the aforementioned rights are Natural Rights (not granted by government) then, it follows that government may not revoke or limit them. The only moral limiting factor on my rights is if my exercise thereof infringes on another’s similar rights. And… my keeping and bearing a gun with x-round capacity infringes on no one’s rights.
If would-be, Tin Pot Joe, feels that he doesn’t need 20 rounds… that’s his business. And, I’m fine with that. But, I will not be drawn into a goofy debate about my rights starting from a Marxist assumption. And, neither should anyone else.
While the mis-administration wrestles with and loses to that fundamentally American bit of orthodoxy, I’ll leave you with this:
So, a criminal with a warrant who resists arrest meets up with an incompetent government employee who can’t tell a Glock from a taser, then there are Democrat riots, and what’s the result? You must be disarmed.
If you’re looking for logical logic, keep on looking. If you understand the logic of power, you came to the right place.
Facts don’t matter.
Evidence is racist.
2+2=4 means you’re a transphobe.
This is about power, people. Their power over you.
Understand that you can’t reason your way out of this. We’re not going to explain to our enemies why it’s inefficient, ineffective, or unAmerican to do the things they are trying to do. You might as well try to teach your terrier particle physics with a thick, juicy ribeye in sitting his bowl in front of him.
Tangent: Pardon me for potentially misgendering your pooch.
Back to my point. There is no point, except power. They want to control you. If they can’t they want to destroy you. Everything – and I mean everything – is bent to that objective.
That’s why the media lies to you.
That’s why they selectively prosecute.
That’s why movie stars lecture you.
That’s why they want to take your guns.
That’s why they want to cheat in elections.
That’s why critical race theory is a thing.
You, a serf.
That’s it. That’s the goal. So, trying to reason your way out of it is useless.
It’s actually worse. It’s embarrassing. You look like a fool. Take Asa! Hutchinson, with his mush-mouthed palaver about “limited government” and citing Reagan to justify his spineless submission to the establishment. This guy literally would rather young children have their genitals mutilated than have to explain to his Walmart masters why he refused to go along with the scalpel zeitgeist.
He’s not just a weak person. He’s not just a stupid person. He’s an evil person.
And we know it. We see it. And we must speak it.
They want to blind us. They want to gag us. They want us tip-toeing through the PC minefield, afraid to take a step less we trigger a detonation of cancellation.
But have you noticed the rumblings of resistance?
Have you noticed the stirrings of pushback?
For a while we had Trump to do the pushing, but with him in Florida we can now see others stepping up. Ron DeSantis is banning critical racism. Brian Kemp found some vertebrae and he’s defying Delta, Coke, and “Major League Chinaball” to demand election integrity. The other night, Tucker Carlson charged into the “replacement theory” ambush where we are not supposed to say what the Democrats explicitly say, which is that they intend to import pliable foreign peasants to replace American citizens at the ballot box (of course, sensible Latinos had other ideas, coming around to Trump significantly in 2020). The garbage media and establishment announced that this fact must not be spoken and Tucker spoke the hell out of it.
The backlash begins.
Right now, it is mere stirrings. Americans are slow to anger, but they are mighty in their wrath. When woke bull-Schiff was confined to college campuses, we could live with it. We didn’t see it. It was not in our faces. But now it is. It’s everywhere in the institutions, and it’s filtering down to people in their jobs, on their televisions and even in their homed when young Kaden returns from Cornell as “Kasey” and informs xir parents they are committing literal violence on xim by not paying xir tuition anymore.
Do they imagine that people will just give up and give in?
Some will. The Fredocons did, of course, but they are weak.
But with Normal Americans, the risk is mistaking patience and restraint for weakness.
Think I’m wrong?
Go try to buy some 5.56mm rounds.
The backlash is building. The anger is real and rising. Yeah, everyone’s getting their .45s and AR15s, which is proper – an armed people is a free people – but the reality is we are unlikely to get to the kind of crisis where they come into active play. As much as some leftists salivate at the idea of declaring war on normal people (read their social media and tell me I’m wrong), there’s almost certainly not going to be civil conflict, though with cops as competent as Taser Girl and our broken military focused on pretending boys can turn into girls, I kind of like patriots’ odds against those few traitors who would not quit rather than suppress the American people for the benefit of their leftist masters. No, the violence will be limited to Democrat areas as Democrat voters burn Democrat cities ruled by Democrat politicians. Which would seem make it a Democrat problem.
But the backlash is coming, peaceful but unstoppable. First, you’ll see the social pushback. We will see brave pols like DeSantis and the newly-concervawoke Kemp. We’ll see conservative media figures refusing to honor the narrative guardrails of the lib-fascists, just like Tucker does.
Soon we’ll see comics attacking this garbage, then other artists joining in. Then more politicians, who will start passing laws banning these practices and gutting these woke corporations. Trust Busting. Banning Chinese collaboration. Regulating big tech.
And we’ll see normal people pushing back in their personal lives.
Of course, we’ll see latecomers like Nikki! and Kristi! who will try to pretend they always knew what time it is. But we’ll remember that when the fight, started these REMFs were cowering in the rear, afraid to offend the Chamber or the NCAA. And they will be ignored.
The 2022 election will be the key. We’re going to crush the left. Why? Because things will get worse, much worse. Crime. A wrecked economy. China will kick our woke military’s behind. Think Jimmy Carter in 1980, but without the competence and a lot more anti-Americanism.
This will be a tough fight, and it is only the beginning. Just do not fall into despair. Do not withdraw – they prefer you submit but they will settle for you giving up (for now – they’ll come for you eventually). Do not fear them.
Be part of the backlash. Get in now, at the beginning.
With President Joe Biden issuing a flurry of executive actions last week to strengthen federal gun laws, state representatives across the country are working in the opposite direction, taking a page from the playbook of immigration activists by advancing legislation that would make their enforcement illegal. On April 6, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the first gun control nullification bill into law.
“Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it’s also the right thing to do,” says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives. “It’s silly to sit around and wait for something you know is unconstitutional,” he tells Reason. “It’s time to stand up and fight back. And the methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left.”
In 1987, Oregon passed a law prohibiting state and local law enforcement from using public resources to arrest or detain people whose only crime was being in the country illegally. Since then, hundreds of other jurisdictions have passed similar laws, becoming so-called sanctuary cities.
Conservative activists are employing the same strategy. While Arizona is the only state where such a bill has become law, elected officials have introduced similar bills in more than a dozen statehouses. Montana‘s legislature has approved a bill that is now awaiting signature or veto from the governor; the Arkansas Senate and the Missouri, South Carolina, and West Virginia houses have each passed such bills; committees in Texas, Alabama, and New Hampshire have bills that are moving forward in their state legislatures; and similar bills have been introduced in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio, Nebraska, Iowa, and Louisiana.
“We know this stuff has been working and the right can continue to complain about the things that the left is successful at, or they can look at it, learn from it, and replicate it,” Michael Boldin, the founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, tells Reason.
Sabatini is cosponsoring a bill in Florida called the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” that would prohibit any employee of the state of Florida from enforcing, or attempting to enforce “any federal act, law, executive order, administrative order, court order, rule, regulation, statute, or ordinance infringing on the right to keep and bear arms ensured by the Second Amendment.” The bill says that any state employee who assists in enforcing federal gun control laws would be terminated and never again be allowed to work for the state of Florida.
Defying federal law is something that a majority of states already do in one way or another, by becoming immigration sanctuaries or through the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs that federal law still deems illegal.
“In terms of the method it’s identical,” says Sabatini. In sanctuary cities, “they stopped reporting to or dealing with I.C.E., and that’s basically what we’re doing.”
Boldin says that if states refuse to cooperate with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), then federal gun control becomes difficult to enforce.
“The ATF only has about 5,500 employees for the whole country. About a third of them are in administration, and that means they don’t have the manpower or resources to enforce federal gun control on their own,” he says. “Their maximum capacity, year in and year out, is between 8,000 to 10,000 closed cases. So if you get a combination of more than 10,000 people violating a federal act, and then on top of it, you have states and local communities refusing to participate in enforcement. You’ve then opened the door to actually nullify that federal act in practice and effect.”
Boldin says that the legal case for nullification doesn’t depend on the constitutionality of the law a state wants to nullify thanks to a legal doctrine known as anti-commandeering, which has been upheld in five Supreme Court cases from 1842 to 2018. It holds that the federal government can’t require states and localities to participate in the enforcement of federal laws.
“Talking about constitutionality actually does kind of get in the way of anti-commandeering,” Boldin notes. “A lot of people like that as a line in the sand. And I think that’s a good approach, but I don’t think they should be helping enforce federal gun control. Even if a federal court says this federal gun measure is ‘constitutional.'”
In March 2018, when the Trump administration was fighting with local officials over the enforcement of federal immigration laws, John Bolton, who would be appointed by then–President Donald Trump as national security adviser the following month, challenged the concept of nullification in an interview with Breitbart News Daily.
“The idea that law enforcement at lower levels shouldn’t be required to cooperate with the feds is just unthinkable,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “That was also proposed by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun before the Civil War, to say that South Carolina and other slave states would not enforce federal law regarding slavery.”
Boldin says that argument is ahistorical. Anti-commandeering originated in the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg v. Pennsylvania, which upheld the state’s right not to participate in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. “The bottom line is nullification, as a tool banning participation in federal enforcement was actually a tool of the anti-slavery abolitionist North,” Boldin argues. “And when South Carolina seceded…they issued a document to explain their rationale. And they specifically cited Northern nullification of the federal Fugitive Slave Act.”
Sabatini says his bill is popular among Florida voters, but that doesn’t mean it’s likely to pass. In other states, law enforcement groups like the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association have worked to prevent gun control nullification bills from passing or to change their language, rendering them toothless.
Boldin says police departments want to continue enforcing federal law because it’s lucrative. “They get all kinds of funding from the joint task forces, through things like the Department of Homeland security grant, the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant…They get civil asset forfeiture…I don’t think they’ll admit that they’re getting a bunch of loot to do this federal enforcement, but they certainly are.”
Boldin says that for the nullification movement to succeed against gun control laws and beyond, more Americans will have to recognize that the most effective way to oppose federal policies that violate their rights is at the local level.
“The whole idea of federalism is so important because it’s the only way you can have a country with a few hundred million people living together with a wide range of social, economic, political viewpoints together in peace. What’s right for people in California is probably not right for people in South Carolina and vice versa. And when we see things that come down from a one-size-fits-all centralized solution, I don’t think anyone really ever gets what they want.”
Because 36 states have nullified federal marijuana prohibition, Boldin argues, there’s mounting pressure for the federal government to follow suit. “I think we can replicate that on other issues and learn that localism is really the way forward for liberty.”
We all know that we are living in revolutionary times. The origins, ascendence, values, laws, and future of the United States are all under assault by self-described, though accurately described, revolutionaries.
It is a Jacobin, Bolshevik, or Maoist moment. All aspects of life, well beyond politics, are now to be ideologically conditioned. Everything from kindergarten messaging, cartoons, workplace reeducation, and television commercials to college admissions, baseball games, and the airlines are to be “fundamentally transformed” along racial lines.
Long gone is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of a colorblind society. Gone, at least at the state level, is confidence in the melting pot of assimilation, integration, and intermarriage (although mixed marriages and multiracial children are at an all-time high).
Gone are even the affirmative-action doctrines of proportional representation and disparate impact. (Yet the two mandates were always arbitrarily applied, in the sense that the U.S. Postal Service and the professional football and basketball leagues never paid much attention to racial quotas based on demographic percentages, which apparently only applied to white and Asian “overrepresentation” elsewhere).
Wokeism, however, is essentially tribal. It seeks to identify particular nonwhite constituencies, unite them not by identical class, not by similar skin color, not by collective similar history, not by shared experience, not by mutual cultural affinities, not by longstanding historical alliances, but simply by two premises:
1) Those of the woke collective are either claimants to being “nonwhite,” and thus victims of racism, or they are architects and supporters of the wokeist agenda, and: 2) they can thereby all either directly leverage reparatory concessions in hiring, admissions, careers, compensation, and general influence or ensure the revolutionary guillotine exempts themselves.
A cynic might add that much of this new racialism is a product of globalteering, and seeks to cater to huge foreign markets—China especially—by both “looking more like the world,” and delighting America’s critics, while appeasing far less moral audiences and consumers abroad than a perceived shrinking market at home.
Still for the woke revolution to succeed, a number of experiments will have to go its way.
Merit Was Always a Sham?
Wokeism assumes that merit was mostly an arbitrary white construct. Its use was to insist on ethnocentric and culturally exclusionary criteria to ostracize the Other. Otherwise, “merit” had not much relation with real competency.
Is that allegation true? We shall soon see.
But note first that few are saying to keep bar-exam grading static, or SAT minimum scores for admission the same, and thereby instead create a Marshall Plan effort in the inner-city to stop the violence, turn failed schools into stellar academies, and honestly critique single-parent households, illegitimacy, and inordinate criminality—as an effort to ensure African American youth are not just qualified, but better qualified meritocratically than those who are deemed to hold these monopolies.
Instead, take the United Airlines idea that it won’t necessarily train the most qualified would-be pilot candidates. Now it will target applicants by racial groupings and, by fiat, limit white males to 2,500 of 5,000 slots in its pilot-training schools. If a nonwhite applicant has less prior experience with flight, scores lower on a test, or compiled a less than competitive high school or college record, it won’t matter then. These were all always useless benchmarks apparently.
In today’s age of computer-driven avionics, the prerequisite ability to do math, to know something about navigation, to understand computers, or to have the proper temperament to fly a plane doesn’t really matter. The fact that thousands will enter pilot training, and soon aircraft controlling, in part on the basis of their gender or race, will not in any way affect the safety or efficacy of travel.
We will know fairly soon the answers to this woke experiment by two criteria: Will pilot error, whether fatal or incidental, increase? And will our elites, whether in Air Force One, or in their own Gulfstreams, follow suit and hire pilots on the basis of their diversity first, and avionics record second.
We can ditto race-based criteria now used at the corporate and financial level, in high-tech, the military, entertainment, education, and in likely everything from movie roles to book contracts to national awards.
Again, such emphases assume that our current managers, professionals, and directors of the last 50 years were heretofore racists or were hired by racists. Or at least they satisfied artificially constructed high standards that bore little relation to actual skills required on the job.
Or they must no longer enjoy percentages in the workplace simply representative of their demographic percentages, but rather in reparatory fashion become underrepresented rather than just demographically correct.
To sum up, in other words, if there were similar race-based/diversity criteria applied to the current meritocratic NBA, would it matter all that much?
If African American athletes were by protocol and statute kept to between, say, 12-20 percent of the NBA player roster, to reflect the black 12-13 percent of the U.S. population, would it make that much difference?
Would the starting L.A. Lakers five, with one African American forward, one white player, a Latino guard, an Asian center, and a Punjabi shooter be all that less exciting, skilled, or successful a team? Are the current standards that accept or reject an NBA player constructed or weighed to favor African Americans that can be judged by their “overrepresentation”?
In the logic of wokeness, would the resulting appeal of a team—that “looks more like” a multiracial America—make up in diversity, unity, cohesion, equity, inclusion, and appeal what it lost in sheer abilities to make plays, dribble, shoot, rebound, dunk, or block? Were the all-white racialist and exclusionary teams of the 1940s really no different in skill and ability than the purely meritocratic 2021 teams? Of course not.
Again, we are going to find out, and in a number of professions, what happens when traditional meritocratic standards are replaced by woke guidelines.
Some Racism Is Not Racism
Wokeism assumes asymmetry. That is, it assumes, for recompensatory purposes, that the spirit of slavery remains, that the hatreds propelling Jim Crow from 1879 to 2021 are very much alive, that the civil rights movement of “equality of opportunity” of the last 55 years was more or less a noble dud. And the result is wokeism’s doctrine that reparatory bias is not bias. Or if it is, the people will understand, Animal Farm-style, why some discrimination is good and different from other discrimination that is bad or why some prejudice is more tolerable than other prejudices.
If asymmetrical wokeism then operates with a necessary and correct imbalance accepted by most, then there will be nothing wrong. There will follow no backlash, no social chaos, in using race to denigrate others collectively.
There will be nothing wrong in ad nauseam using “whiteness,” “white privilege,” “white supremacy,” and “white terrorists’” in pejoratively stereotypical terms—collectively to apply to all 230 million deemed whites‚ whether the unemployed welder or the part-time junior college instructor or Bill Gates—in a way that it would be terribly wrong to talk pejoratively and collectively in terms of any other group.
If one collates all the things that have been said over the years about whites in general by Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, or Maxine Waters, and yet more recently in more sophisticated fashion by the new generation of racialist-obsessed intellectuals such as Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ibram X. Kendi, Damon Young, or Elie Mystal, and then switched the terms white to black, would there be any outcry that it was becoming wrong to deductively extrapolate from individuals collective values and beliefs, and then, in circular fashion, reapply them to individuals as an innate trait?
We shall soon discover whether this tenet of wokeism—asymmetrical use of collective stereotyping—is widely accepted by 330 million Americans. We will soon see one of three consequences from this unapologetic woke racial generalizing:
1) The American people are so inured to their hateful origins and history, that they do not mind at all when whites are collectively demonized as enjoying positions they never earned and thus logically should not continue to enjoy.
2) Given that no one objects to stereotyping 230 million people, no one objects to anyone stereotyping others on the basis of race, in the manner that once fostered the civil rights movement.
3) We will all for survival, as Rwanda, the Balkans, and Iraq teach us, group together by first-cousin affinities and tribes. Recalling Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes, we will freely stereotype, denigrate, and separate from other groups on the premises that our particular generalizations and deductions are the one and only true and accurate typecasting.
Dr. Frankenstein and His Woke Monster
What made a 90 percent white population of the late 1950s and 1960s finally sicken of racial bias? Many things—protests, boycotts, the force of moral persuasion. But three things stand out.
One, segregation and bias were always contrary to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
Two, these assumptions of racial prejudice were not predicated on any discernible science, logic, or coherent basis other than tribal bias, hatred, and ignorance.
Three, racial unfairness robbed the United States of critical talent by ignoring merit and substituting pseudo-scientific tribal affinities.
Yet by the emerging 1960s did anyone really believe that Perry Como de facto had a better voice than Harry Belafonte or Sammy Davis, Jr., that Sidney Poitier must be a less gifted actor than Frank Sinatra, that Hank Aaron was innately less impressive than Roger Maris, or that Senator Edward Brooke was less competent an American senator than Senator Herman Talmadge? Again, no.
Wokeness is returning to such tribal separation and crackpot categorization on the one assumption that its arbitrary rules will not alienate Americans as they finally did in the past.
So now are we to believe that non-whites can pick the race of their future roommates in colleges without audit or complaint? Farm aid shall be doled out to all except whites? Welfare in Oakland must exclude poor white recipients? Vaccinations will be targeted to non-white groups first? Will 330 million Americans grow to accept that racial typology will govern all state policy—in following a noble and successful historical precedent?
In each mass shooting, we shall broadcast the horror only if the shooter is white and his victims not so, but mute the story if the opposite should be true?
For noble purposes, criminal suspects shall not be identified by race unless they are white? It will be fine in advance to announce the gender and race of a vice-presidential candidate that mostly alone will determine the selection? We will massage data, and suppress or publicize statistics depending on their usefulness to the woke movement?
If blacks are disproportionately responsible for hate crimes against Asian Americans, we will keep still, or better yet nobly lie that whites are.
Such wokeness assumes that the Eastern Europeans never tired of their ministry-of-truth propaganda, that the cynical Soviet citizen never ignored Pravda’s assertions, or that Cubans really believe the Castro communiques.
Wokeness is either unaware of, or unconcerned with, the seething religious, caste, and racial tensions that plague India, or wrecked Lebanon, or unwound Yugoslavia. That is, the woke believe their Byzantine books of race-based exceptions, exemptions, and absolutions will convince 330 million Americans that segregation, or official untruth, are permitted, given historical circumstances and the common good.
But they will not.
Finally, wokeness takes for granted that its elite white Dr. Frankenstein architects will always control the prejudicial woke monster they created—on the assumption that one will never devour its creators. But history suggests ideologies often do just that.
Over the last two weeks, many of America’s most elite colleges seem to have deliberately restricted white admissions to around 30-40 percent of their incoming classes—on the altar of diversity and post-George Floyd wokeness. Yet, not every high-earning, bicoastal white liberal can give $10 million to Yale or Stanford or sire a likely future Major League Baseball star.
For the woke white elite, then, it will be hard to find some exemption from the rules that 70 percent of the population will be artificially recalibrated to 30 percent of the successful admissions.
A white liberal may have said “Who cares?” when hard-working Asians who represent six percent of the U.S. population were deliberately restricted to no more than 30-40 percent of the nation’s “best” colleges. But now? Will he really preen, “Bravo, my super-prepped, hyper-achieving prodigy got rejected at all the good schools and I’m so proud he took one for the woke team?”
Or what happens to the wannabe woke CEO who offered every sort of humiliating “unearned” confession, but nevertheless was still of the wrong color? Or what will be the mindset of the progressive, white male lieutenant colonel who found that his loud wokeness was mostly useful in preparing him to better understand why he should not be promoted to brigadier general?
It is OK for woke whites to be constantly accused of “unearned privilege” as long as their bicoastal billets were tolerably reduced by just 20 percent due to racial gerrymandering. But does their magnanimity extend to a 30-40 percent white jizyah, that cuts so close to progressive homes?
Will the brilliant actress in a blockbuster classic mumble, if even just privately, that she was the wrong color to be nominated as best actress?
Sure, some may feel that these are elite psychodramas. But for that reason, they will become mostly the angsts of the Left. The liberal white elite class engineered a system of woke racialism that they assumed rested on some sort of unspoken 70 percent white/12 percent black/10 percent Latino/six percent Asian, and two percent “other” formula that would always still leave them plenty of spoils while the unhappy consequences fell instead on Dotty the Deplorable, Charlie Chump, Cliff the Clinger, and Irene Irredeemable. They did not sign up for a 30-40 percent white allotment that cuts into the white woke; that is, the good and the morally superior whites.
So this, too, will be another of wokeism’s greatest tests, when elite writers, professors, actors, lawyers, newsroom grandees, and CEO magnificoes learn that they, too, can be of the wrong color under the new tribal prejudice they fostered.
Wokeism is creating a future group of politically incorrect Trotskyites on a proverbial rendezvous with a Mexican ice ax, given that by birth they will never be woke enough for the new Stalinism.
Brooklyn Center, MN. Not far from 2020’s ground zero of uncivil unrest. Here we go again.
Observing the rule that “all initial reports are wrong”, we here at WC would like to point a few things out. In the end, they all point to the same conclusion: we are not doing ourselves, as Americans, any favors.
First, in a report from The Hill, we discover that the usual crew of suspects have spoken out of turn, and before all the facts are in, to condemn that which they don’t understand but are firmly against.
Rashida Tlaib, has “ruled” that the shooting was the result of “inherent & intentional racism”. Nonsense. We all know that’s not true. But, trotting out the “racist bogeyman” at every turn is good and profitable political theater. As demonstrated by BLM leaders buying $1M+ homes in gated communities.
Second, we have the body cam footage of the incident.
Again, understanding that “all initial reports are wrong”, this interaction after a point certainly doesn’t cast Brooklyn Center’s law enforcement training in a positive light.
The reports are that the intervening set of hands in the video belong to a 26-year police veteran who is currently assigned as a “training officer” with the department.
Ignoring the apparent lack of skill cuffing a detainee, and moving on to the shooting portion of the incident, the veteran “training officer” thinks she is deploying less-than-lethal means to disable the would-be detainee. I suspect that she really did believe in that moment that she was going to tase the suspect, based on her audibly notifying the suspect that she would tase him. However, what she actually deployed was her sidearm. And, pressing the trigger on a sidearm sends bullets down range, as opposed to electric current. A life altering difference.
And, third… in the aftermath of the incident and the subsequent uncivil unrest, the best that community leaders can do is fire the City Manager for suggesting the officer in question should receive due process, and dither about the differences in protests and riots. Fabulous.
Meanwhile a thousand miles away in the Nation’s Capital, the President who (as a senator) “authored” the “Crime Bill” and the VP who (as a district attorney) withheld critical evidence are the “change in administration” that would stop the 2020 unrest. Guess what…?
- Our communities do not have the will to police themselves well. They are not protecting or serving.
- Our politicians are nothing but hate-mongers who prematurely weigh-in on every local issue with the intent of sowing discord because it extends their 15 minutes.
- At least some of our law enforcement personnel are not receiving the training they should be.
All of the above lead, very directly to a loss of State-legitimacy. At a certain point, it becomes apparent to everyone that “government” isn’t working and has neither the will nor the means to do so. And, at that point… civil society becomes something entirely different as otherwise peaceful people must take measures to protect themselves and their livelihoods from what amounts to government sponsored ruin.
Bottom line…? We aren’t doing ourselves any favors. Again.
The fact that the loser spawn of Grandpa Badfinger is thumbing his coke-caked nose at the justice system represents not merely the tacky machinations of a crusty pol protecting the family Fredo. It has a deeper and more cynical purpose – to show us that our overlords are unaccountable and that the law is now merely another implement in the regime’s toolkit of oppression. They are telling us that they and their scumbag progeny can do whatever they want, but that we can’t.
In the short term, this is infuriating. In the long term, it could bring down the system our garbage ruling caste inherited.
They are throwing it in our faces, thinking it’s a good plan to force us to submit. Right now, hundreds of Americans are being prosecuted for trespassing inside their own Capitol building, and eager agents of the American Stasi are salivating at the idea of charging them with “sedition” for doing exactly what hordes of leftist dirtbags did in the past. Of course, none of the leftist dirtbags were shot dead while unarmed by some cop whose name we still don’t know. That’s another message. If you are a petty criminal dying of a self-inflicted fentanyl overdose while you resist arrest, we’ll know the name of the cop unlucky enough to be the guy arresting you when you expired. But cap an unarmed female vet for climbing through a window? Shhhh. That’s a secret.
President Asterisk came out and announced that his administration was going to be cracking down on those terrible gun people even as his Snortunate Son got a pass for lying about his drug addiction on his background check. Think you would catch a break? Maybe if you were in a blue big city – weirdly (okay, not weirdly – by design) the inhabitants of Democrat petri dishes don’t get charged for this kind of gun crime.
It’s more than just helping out a relative or catering to commie voters. It’s a demonstration of power. They can make the rules and break the rules, or break the rules over their enemies’ heads.
You are their enemy. The law is not designed to stop crime or save lives but to create another way to keep you in line, frightened and defenseless.
This dual track justice system is nothing new – it’s been going on for a while. We saw it with Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit, whose classified info antics would have sent any of us off for a stretch in the stony lonesome. Not her. She didn’t miss a single goblet of her screw-top Trader Joe’s chardonnay. Those of us who handled classified info understand at a gut level just how appalling this whole thing was. There’s no leeway for people like us, no bending over backwards and then around again into a knot to explain the crimes away when a peasant screws up, even by a simple oversight. But she is special. She did it on purpose, got caught, and all the best and the brightest made sure she skated.
Again, it’s not merely that she’s connected and she called in some favors. There’s a method to their mendacity. They want us to know that the law is but a weapon to be used against you if you step out of line.
Andrew Cuomo was taking liberties with lib girls (who pretended to be astonished that he acted just like every other lib potentate) when he wasn’t taking thousands of lives of old people killed in COVID hotboxes. He’ll walk. You wouldn’t.
DC teen sociopaths kill a hardworking guy while stealing his car. They got a deal. You wouldn’t.
But a patriot comes to Washington and walks through the Rotunda – lock him up forever!
Yet when some BLM/Antifa pustule tries to set fire to a federal courthouse? Case dismissed – for him, her, or whatever its nonbinary pronoun is this week.
Gee, maybe our intrepid, licensed, registered regime journalists will call out this outrageous corruption. Oh right, no they won’t. In fact, instead of being attracted to this reeking pile of corruption that was just begging for exposure, the media grown-up maggots instead went and started buzzing around Ron DeSantis.
Does anyone imagine that if Don Jr. had been a meth-mouthed pervert who got kicked out of the Navy on his first day for drugs and who had filled out a false background check for a gun that this would not have been the first question to President Trump? Did it even get brought up to *, much less in any of Huffer Biden’s interviews for his new zillion-dollar book, “My Ghostwriter Wrote This So My Loser Family Could Get Yet Another Laundered Pay-Off?”
Surely you jest. I just hope he had the class to buy the swooning reporters dinner first and to wear protection.
So, the prosecutors won’t prosecute and the reporters won’t report, though they’ll all babble endlessly about the importance of our sacred institutions even as they set them aflame. This is unsustainable. What will we citizens do?
First, they’ll vote for harder and harder core right wingers. Self-preservation will require pummelers over policy wonks. Thought Trump was a monster? Get a load of what’s coming. The time of such puff-people as Asa! And Kristi! And Nikki! is ending. We’ll demand Genghis Khan. And we’ll get him.
Then look for us to do the same when we get back in power. Hey, new rules, as well as self-preservation. But do two wrongs make a right? Probably not, but just try explaining how this stuff suddenly stopped being okay when we start doing it back at them. Good luck with that.
And look for citizens on juries to go through jury selection nodding about how they will follow the judge’s instructions and deliberate and all that good stuff and then nullify the hell out of whatever the DoJ puts in front of them. This is why they are so eager to get cases in Democrat enclaves like DC – they are terrified that normal Americans in normal America will refuse to convict.
Now, the bow-tied virgin Fredocon corps will cry about this, and for once they are partially right. A justice system in shambles is not what any of us should want, but it is inevitable when one side tries to use it as its cudgel against the other side. And the reaction of the oppressed is equally inevitable. It’s not a matter of “principle” – perhaps fighting the politicization of justice instead of flaking for transexual story time might have been a better plan – but of human nature. We see the system has no clothes, and we will not compliment its outfit. Instead, we’ll mock its shriveled genitals.
The liberal establishment has succumbed to the temptation to rely on power instead of the law impartially and fairly applied. It further imagines, since our ruling caste is historically illiterate and totally ignorant of human, much less American, nature, that it can flaunt this unfairness and to intimidate us with it. Hitler thought he could bomb the Brits and butcher the Russians into submission. But it just made them madder, and in the end he blew his miserable brains out in a dingy cave.
We will not be bullied into serfdom. If power is the currency, we normal Americans have plenty of cash. Our failed elite would be wise to not encourage a spending spree.
Well, I wouldn’t expect anything less from Biden’s gun czar nominee. Joe decided to tap David Chipman to become the next director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. It’s part of his slew of executive orders to combat gun violence after the heinous mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado, which left 10 people dead, including a police officer. It has now been forgotten by the liberal media since it doesn’t fit their narrative. The shooter isn’t white. He’s a Syrian refugee named Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa. He’s 21-years-old. Yet, never let a crisis go to waste, right?
Last year, Chipman mocked first-time gun owners, saying they were worried by zombies, and compared them to Joe Exotic of Netflix’s Tiger King. He was commenting on the massive 2020 spike in gun sales. Katie already covered how Chipman is a die-hard gun control advocate. He also spewed some big whoppers about the Waco siege too, suggesting a couple of helicopters were shot down by .50 caliber machine gunfire. That never happened. The Daily Caller has more on this nonsense (via Daily Caller):
President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives mocked first-time gun owners who purchased firearms during the coronavirus pandemic, saying in an interview last year that they were “putting themselves and their families in danger.”
Chipman said in the interview that he understood the pandemic-induced anxiety that led to a spike in gun sales. But he worried that purchasers were making “rash decisions” that could put them at risk.
“Most of the new buyers who went out to the gun store and bought a gun have no training whatsoever,” Chipman said in an interview with Cheddar that aired on April 3, 2020.
“In their mind they might be competent, they might think they’re die-hard and ready to go, but unfortunately they’re more like Tiger King. They’re putting themselves and their families in danger.”
He currently serves as a senior adviser to the gun control group founded by former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords.
Chipman said in an online chat forum last year that he supports a total ban on the manufacture and sale of so-called assault rifles.
Yeah, that’s a nice window into the mindset of who we’re up against. It’s a person who hates gun-owning Americans, hates they have the right to own firearms, and thinks that only government employees should have guns, the same government agents who misplace their service weapons or shoot themselves while speaking to kids. How about accidentally shooting a man while doing a backflip at a bar? See, I can play this game too, Davey.
Yeah, that’s a nice window into the mindset of who we’re up against. It’s a person who hates gun-owning Americans, hates they have the right to own firearms, and thinks that only government employees should have guns, the same government agents who misplace their service weapons or shoot themselves while speaking to kids. How about accidentally shooting a man while doing a backflip at a bar? See, I can play this game too, Davey.
JoeBama has gone on the record saying that, “no amendment is absolute.” In as much as it matters, as he’s no more legitimate an arbiter of what’s Constitutional than any other American… I say this: Bullshit, and fuck right off.
What he’s really saying is: “My administration will only observe the amendments we like and can use to forward our agenda.” Hell, Joe… even your boy, Barry, understood the Bill of Rights as a “charter of negative liberties”. i.e. a limit on Federal power
Well… we can all play that game, Joe. If we are going to look at all this Constitution stuff as mutable, let’s take a look at my (I’m as much an American and arbiter of Constitutionality as you are, after all) Bill of Rights (and other amendments) preferred observances, shall we?
- I’m generally ok with this one… except where it pertains to people stomping on and burning my flag. As the man said, “the first amendment is to protect you from the government… not from me.”
- I’m all for this one and will be exercising the hell out of it. In a wholly, uninfringed fashion.
- I’m down with this one, too. Unless I know the soldier personally. In which case, he can stay for a bit. As long as he keeps his poop in a group and throws in for beer occasionally.
- Yup. Good with #4. No unreasonable searches or seizures. I’ll be the arbiter of “reasonable/unreasonable.” Thanks for understanding.
- Good here too. I reserve the right to keep my damned mouth shut. Or, not. YMMV.
- Yup. Speedy trial when necessary is good. But, .gov has been dropping the ball on this anyway. So… Figure it out. Let’s cap it at a month. If you can’t get me on to the docket by then… I’ve been acquitted.
- Ok. Jury of my peers. Only if you can find them.
- Yes. No one likes cruel and unusual anything. Again, I’ll be happy to let you know exactly what those parameters are if it comes to that.
- Yes. I retain the right to do what I want outside the specific confines that the Constitution has outlined as responsibilities of the government, Federal or State.
- Yes. The States have rights and can choose not to participate in the Federal shit show.
- Ok. State sovereign immunity… I’m generally down. It’s certainly better than the “Federal”, top-down option.
- Presidents and Vice Presidents elected together… not sure on this one. I think I may prefer the Adams/Jefferson plan…
- Abolition. Well… Slaves seem like a lot of work, but I’m not sure. Maybe we should give that a trial revival. The Third World seems to like it… On the fence.
- Privileges or Immunities… Equal Protection… meh. The Feds haven’t observed this one for a while. What’s in it for me?
- Prohibits voting restrictions based on race. There are still rules. You still have to prove you’re qualified. Venezuelan isn’t a race. Try to keep up.
- Income Tax. Really? This one’s stupid. Tax is theft. Abolish the IRS. Audit the Fed. Not having it. I’ll pay for the stuff I want and will use as it comes up. Pound sand. I’ll keep my dough. Starve the Fed and a lot of other problems sort themselves…
- Senators chosen by popular vote. Nope. They were appointed by State legislatures for a reason. That worked better and was much more Republic-an and less Democrat-ic. Let’s go back to the original.
- Prohibition (repealed). Well good. Because, I wasn’t going to be observing that nonsense one way or the other.
- Women can vote… maybe. Depends on the woman.
- Presidential terms… does this really matter? I mean… we don’t have anybody at the wheel now…
- Repealing 18. Ok. But, I’ll BMOB when and where I choose. Get stuffed and stay out of my business. My body, my choice.
- Number of times Presidents can sit in the chair. Whatever. Again…
- DC gets electors… Why? They aren’t a State. The intent was for DC denizens to be short term residents and from somewhere else… where, presumably, they’d be getting some representation. Figure it out.
- Prohibits revoking voting rights on the basis of non-payment of taxes. Fine. See 16.
- Presidential succession. You see how that’s working out… right? Time to go back to the drawing board…
- Fine. 18 year-olds can vote. And, fight. And, drink. And, smoke. What?
- Congressional Salary. Take care of 16 as I’ve outlined, and this takes care of itself. Why are we paying those clowns anyway? Shouldn’t they have real jobs? Producing a good or service? Maybe something shovel-ready…
- Damn. I guess I’m out of amendments…. and I was just getting loose…
So, Joe… here’s the take away: Your terms are acceptable. You do your thing. I’ll do mine. From the sounds of it, you’ve a bit of a mess you need to deal with at home (like your crack-head kid and his laptop) before you get to start telling me how to live my life. I’ll leave you with a bit of appropriate entertainment as a parting gift…
Multiple governors signaled that they will be taking action against Democrat President Joe Biden after Biden officially unveiled his initial plan to attack Second Amendment rights.
Biden announced a series of actions, which he articulated during a press conference where he made multiple false claims, targeting two types of gun parts: pistol braces and chunks of plastic and metal that are unfinished firearms. The Biden administration also will be publishing “model red flag legislation” for states to consider. This comes just a couple of weeks after the Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to uphold a warrantless gun confiscation case.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said following Biden’s press conference that the president’s actions were his “initial actions,” that there “will be more,” and that he intends to “use the power of his presidency” to crack down on Americans’ constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights.
Numerous governors immediately pushed back on Biden’s attack on Second Amendment rights and indicated that they will be taking action to protect their residents from Biden’s agenda.
“Biden is threatening our 2nd Amendment rights. He just announced a new liberal power grab to take away our guns,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) wrote on Twitter. “We will NOT allow this in TX. It’s time to get legislation making TX a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary State passed and to my desk for signing.”
Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy (R) said that Biden’s actions “won’t save lives or stop criminals,” and would only “disarm law abiding citizens.”
“Alaska is a Second Amendment sanctuary state, and we will be evaluating our options,” Dunleavy said.
“I think it’s out of control and it’s obvious that they can’t get it through Congress and so he’s acting on his own,” Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds (R) said. “He’s doing it at a rapid speed. There has not been another president, I don’t think, in history that has implemented the number of Executive Orders that this president has implemented. And the hypocrisy of running as a uniter and a president that was going to bring both parties together and heal this country, he has done anything but that. He is continuing to divide the country and he’s doing it through these outlandish Executive Orders.”
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R) highlighted the portion of the Second Amendment that states “shall not be infringed,” writing: “Biden claims that his actions won’t infringe on the 2nd Amendment. That’s false.”
“Taking away guns with Red Flag laws is an infringement,” Noem continued. “Placing new limits on firearms sales is an infringement. Curbing ammo purchases is an infringement.”
Idaho Governor Brad Little (R) said that the state will be standing up for its residents’ Second Amendment rights.
“Idaho will not stand for President Biden’s unilateral actions to erode your Second Amendment rights,” Little said. “Idaho’s Congressional delegation and I are in lockstep in our opposition to the President’s actions and his direction to Congress to strip law-abiding Americans of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon (R) tweeted: “Wyoming is, has always been, and will continue to be a state where 2nd Amendment rights are recognized and protected.”
“I oppose any orders or actions imposed from the federal level that infringe on this fundamental right,” Gordon continued. “Today I signed HB 236 which prohibits financial institutions and payment processors in Wyoming from discriminating against firearms businesses engaged in lawful commerce.”
Old habits die hard, and now it’s time for the GOP’s habitual support of big business to die, and to die hard.
Look around – the corporations have decided it’s a great time to use their power against us. There used to be a kind of gentleman’s agreement – they stay out of our business and we stay out of theirs. But they broke that agreement. They decided to go all in. And it’s no coincidence that the political positions they have taken conform exactly to those of the Democrat Party. So, the hell with them.
This change has been coming for a while. We need to understand the nature of the old Republican/big business relationship to see what happened. The companies were never with us culturally – they wanted fewer regs, lower taxes, open borders, and docile workers. They didn’t care about social issues. They stayed out of it. But a few decades ago, when those icky evangelicals and others who actually worshipped something besides the almighty dollar showed up, the corporate types got restless. After all, it made for awkward convos at the country club when you were allied with the Jesus gun people from out there in Americaland. So, today, they have intervened in favor of our enemies, but they expect us to sit back and pretend it’s 1987.
Why did they go with the liberal establishment? Because that’s who the multinational bigwigs are, and always have been. It’s always about class, and the class these robber barons circulated within looks down on regular Americans. Hence the current virtue signaling, where you have airlines and shaving cream companies telling us we’re racist. It’s all about the execs making sure everyone knows whose side they are on, so the message to their brethren and sisteren and otherkin is, “Hey, we’re not like those people. Not at all.”
But what’s hilarious is how they still expect us to go to bat for them against the left, just like before. It doesn’t work that way. Relationships are about give and take, and we’ve given our support to the big companies when it comes to taxes, regulations, and the like. But what have we taken? A lot of crap from woke jerks.
It’s not even just the lectures about how we are all the -ists and all the -phobes. The corporations have fought for open borders. They have sent our jobs overseas and killed small businesses at home by leveraging the government to favor the Walmarts and Costcos over the mom and pops. Why do you think your little shop (not to mention your church) had to close because of Covid, but the big boxes were wide open and packed?
They are not our friends. They are not even our allies. They are the enemy, and until now they have successfully used the GOP as their defense against the Democrats even as they clink Chardonnay glasses with the libs on Park Avenue.
Time to rethink our coalition.
Time to think about our coalition without the huge anchor of the big corporations weighing us down.
And they do weigh us down. It’s not just that we get a big, fat nothing from our relationship. It’s that we end up buying all their corporate depredations. How many times have we had to take the hit for the damage the giant companies have done? The Democrats use it to pummel us every election cycle, alienating natural allies of every race and ethnicity in return for…what?
What, exactly, do we get out of the big companies?
Donations? Take a look at the numbers, because those fat checks are heading left. Big business not only funds the Democrats. It funds their commie outside agitators, like BLM. Even the Chamber of Commerce went full on liberal last time, firing the last Republicans left on its staff.
Oh, now the Chamber of Communism is making little whiny noises about the huge taxes the Democrats are planning. And big business is going to turn to us to once again help it stop the bloodbath.
It needs to be greeted with a middle finger.
They want to play politics? Well, dudes, here’s politics. Good and hard.
Raise the corporate rates, but only for companies of over $250 million.
Tax them on worldwide income, not US net, to ensure they can’t off-shore their gains or pay zero taxes.
Don’t raise the minimum wage though – big companies will absorb that and laugh as little companies die. Small business will be starved of workers. Instead, stop the Walmarts and the rest of the big companies from sticking us taxpayers with the living wage bill by directly taxing the ones grossing over $250 million in income per each employee to pay for the Section 8, Medicare, and food stamps their workers need and that Uncle Sucker provides.
And end all the sweetheart tax breaks. Bye-bye carried interest deduction – guess you hedge fund creeps shouldn’t have carried so much water for the Dems.
We know the upside of breaking up with big business – we get more tax money, we lose the corporate stooge albatross, and we punish our enemies. But what’s the downside? People who treat us like garbage don’t get us doing their dirty work? Not much of a downside.
Now, this is where the “principles” thing comes up. Apparently, some alleged principle out there requires us, as true conservatives, to be corporate shills with no ROI for all eternity. We could do that, or we could not get shafted by ingrates who hate us.
I like the principle of not getting shafted by ingrates who hate us better.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: There is no valid conservative principle that requires you to be less free. But trashing our rights is what woke corporations using their power against us as Democrat catspaws do. It’s unclear why they are morally free to exercise their political will indirectly as liberal cut-outs, yet we can’t exercise ours directly through our elected officials.
But, the Fredocons will whine, what about the corporations’ rights?
Well, here’s my deal, take it or leave it, no negotiation, final, best offer: I will care about their property rights exactly as much as they care about our civil rights. And that should scare the hell out of them.
Jen Psaki Admits Biden Gets Instructions from Obama: “we don’t read out those specific calls. We keep them private.”
Perhaps the most consistent question about the installed dementia patient occupying the oval office, is about who actually is planning the policy, scheduling the implementation and giving Biden his instructions after his breakfast pudding. For those who have followed politics closely, the answer has always been obvious: Barack Obama and the Chicago crew.
JoeBama is not a meme, nor is it a snarky slap at the current White House occupant, it is a reality.
Barack Obama and his ideologues (who took over the DNC) are now completely in control over the leftist policy execution. Obama with the help of his former administration crew, eliminated the remaining remnants of the Clinton machine, installed Tom Perez and then set about absorbing the AME church network…. that’s where James Clyburn came in, to endorse Biden as part of the final stages of the plan.
Today, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, the former spokesperson for Obama’s State Department, essentially admitted that Obama’s network was in charge, and Biden receives his instructions from the crew.
There is a history – a backstory – that only a handful of people genuinely understand. The answers boil down to the less discussed issue of ideological camps and the modern alignment that has taken place over the past decade. The most visible reference for the inflection point was the 2008 primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Throughout the first decade of this millennium there was an ideological shift, an inflection point, that became ¹most clear in the rise of a little known state representative who was appointed to become a Senator from Illinois, his name was Barack Obama. In the background of Obama’s rise were the people who designed the modern political left. Those Obama creationists were/are hardline revolutionary communist types.
This RevCom group was comprised of the more radical elements of the progressive movement; those who wanted to “fundamentally change” the United States, and who have a very patient and methodical plan to do so.
Those elements took control by convincing the far-left labor movement to abandon the traditional Democrat apparatus and support a more radical approach. The SEIU, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, UAW, UFCW and others were leveraged to this position through promised financial benefit if they went along.
Those groups became the more powerful ammunition needed by the radical community activist teams, which were entirely on the side of Obama. Hillary Clinton’s first run for the presidency was crushed under the weight of the leverage all of the radicals aligned on the Obama side. Clinton was only left with the option to support the extremists in exchange for support in 2016.
However, the support she received was not full-throated. The ideological hatred that was created during the earlier inflection point, when the camps were at war, left scars. Those scars never healed; and, quite frankly the radicals were not going to support someone they just didn’t like.
Radical footsoldiers operate best on feelings and emotions. Clinton just didn’t do it for them… One by one the traditional democrat left was wiped out by the more extreme radical leftists. [Remember the destruction of the Bart Supak “blue dogs”?]
Fast forward to today, very recently, and what we are seeing is the outcome of the radical-left in complete control over the internal club systems and political party apparatus. It took some time for this takeover to matriculate.
We are there now…. and into this far-left soup of radical elements the new left-wing media is mixed. The media are now activists for the radicals. This is why there is a more brutally obvious bias present today that was not present before. The bias was always present, but the scale of the ideological nature of the bias was not always as visible. Today the ideological support is crystal clear.
The issue for the Andrew Cuomo’s and Gavin Newsom’s of the world is inherently a matter of club selection. Barack Obama, meaning the people behind the Obama system of radical elements, were the decision-makers in the 2020 Democrat primary race. They will never give up that control now.
Team Obama selected Joe Biden specifically because he was controllable; extremely controllable and almost cognitively disconnected from any functional capabilities. Team Obama also selected and installed Kamala Harris as the Vice President with the intent to use her as the substantive and moldable ally.
When Biden is removed, willingly or by political power, the radicals are planning to use Kamala to continue their “fundamental change” priorities. Biden is being thrown upon the spears of those who want to defend against the attack of the radicals.
The extreme policies we are seeing come from the Biden administration are being assigned to him specifically because he is disposable. The radicals do not care about public opinion of the policies or outcomes because they have Biden in place to absorb all the negative attachments.
Kamala Harris is the key to seeing the hidden hand of the Obama control agents at work. Harris’s associations are Obama’s associations. Harris’s crew is Obama’s crew. Anyone who is not Harris; and who carries a perspective of potential political influence; is now a thorn in the agenda.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was rising in influence, as a result he needed to be eliminated in order to retain the exclusive position of Kamala Harris as heir to the radical agenda.
Watch over the next several weeks, months and years and you will see prominent Democrats left with a decision…. Support Harris (meaning those behind her) and the RevCom agenda, OR be targeted for removal by the new radical system that includes a willing media taking targeting orders from the club.
That is what is going on…
[¹Any person who was 15 to 30 years old in 2007/2008 is lost to this level of manipulation. They were the people who drank the Obama Kool-Aid and they became permanently infected. Their sense of self, their matriculation, came into being during the Obama psychological war. You will note they are currently, approximately, 28 to 40 years old (+/- a few years). When you encounter a leftist person who appears to have totally lost their mind over the COVID stuff; and or they are going bat-shit crazy about the masks, in such a way they just cannot allow you to exist without their attempt to confront you; you will note the vast majority fit in this age group of 30 to 45. There is no reasoning with those who defined their world views in the Obama era. They are a lost generation; and, unfortunately, a few of them were breeders.]
Earlier today Joe Biden raised some eyebrows when he said “no amendment to the constitution is absolute.” The first ten amendments to the constitution are commonly known as “The Bill of Rights.”
The occupant of the oval office, and head of the executive branch, saying the Bill of Rights is not absolute, should be challenged immediately to qualify that statement.
As a reminder:
♦ Amendment 1
– Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
♦ Amendment 2
– The Right to Bear Arms
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
♦ Amendment 3
– The Housing of Soldiers
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
♦ Amendment 4
– Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
♦ Amendment 5
– Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
♦ Amendment 6
– Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
♦ Amendment 7
– Rights in Civil Cases
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.
♦ Amendment 8
– Excessive Bail, Fines, and Punishments Forbidden
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
♦ Amendment 9
– Other Rights Kept by the People
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
♦ Amendment 10
– Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Today, around 2:30 CDT, another “mass shooting” took place. This time in Texas and in a cabinetry manufacturing facility.
This is an industry I am intimately familiar with. I am familiar with both the work environment and the potential threats. They are not so different than the threats that any manufacturing operation faces, but I am very familiar with the cabinetry industry environment.
Active shooters will disable any operation. But, manufacturing is particularly susceptible. Open spaces, poorly vetted employees, poorly controlled entry points, uncomfortable working conditions (particularly in the summer months)… It can be a charged enviroment.
Further, Texans are fond of telling me that they are armed and ready for such eventualities. I’ve always known that was bunk, but this particular case in point illustrates exactly how vulnerable facilities and enterprises are. Texan or otherwise.
Law Enforcement cannot be in all places at all times. And, even if they could, their job is not to protect specific individuals or enterprises. Their job is to respond after a crime has been committed.
No guns policies from HR will not prevent these incidents. Lawyers will not stand between your enterprise and a deadly threat. As a result, your only real option is to defend your enterprise by creating an in-house, proprietary security force. Capable of responding, real-time, at point of inception, to a lethal threat on premise.
As has been proven more than once, enterprise leadership is liable if a lethal event occurs and they have failed to secure their enterprise. Do not wait to secure your enterprise until something tragic has occurred. At that point, no army of underwriters will save you. You will be on the hook for the liability, the downtime, the employee counseling, the bad press, and the funeral expenses. Is that what you want? Your employees are your lifeblood. Why are you leaving them vulnerable by not preparing adequately?
Don’t be the CEO, COO, HR Director, or Ops Manager that allows this to happen on premise. Defend your enterprise. Distributed Security can help. Get in touch.
“Elections have Consequences.”
This particular Obama-ism makes my skin crawl and my blood boil. While it is apparently true, it is also a tacit admission that, when in power, politicians have absolutely no intention of actually representing their constituents. Their agenda is prime, and everyone who differs in opinion can pound the proverbial sand. I’m pretty sure there’s a line in the Declaration condemning a lack of representation…
As a case in point, the alleged, “great unifier”, Joe Biden, has made the case that his gun control proposals have bipartisan support and are overwhelmingly popular. However, while watching the Rose Garden roll-out of said proposals on YouTube (the official broadcast of the WH) the ratio of likes to dislikes tells a different tale.
In the screenshot below, the YT feed identifies 4700 people viewing (indicative of the Administration’s popularity all by itself) and about 400 “likes” as compared to greater than 3000 “dislikes”.
Now… I’m no statistician… and allowing for the fact that maybe many more people watched the feed on a different “channel… shouldn’t any representative sampling generally mirror the same statistical sentiment on a given issue? Are we to believe that just anti-Biden, pro2A folks tuned into the official WH feed?
And, assuming that the various representative samples would conform, generally, to the same statistical sentiment… Why do we allow the Powers that Be to continue to lie to us to further their agenda?
“Elections have Consequences”, translated: “You little people sit down and shut-up. We won and we’ll do what ever we please. And, there’s not a damned thing you can or will do about it.”