Exploring practical methods for preparing for the end times, including analysis of end time scripture and prophecy, current events, prepping and self-defense.
The area where fire investigators believed the Black Fire was sparked had multiple rounds of shells from shotguns, full and empty beer cans with bullet holes, and trash.
They don't actually say that the fire was caused by a firearm, only that the fire started in proximity to the husks of shotguns shells and beer cans with bullet holes and trash (the latter of which may or may not have been from shooters). The fire could have been caused by grass contacting a hot muffler on a vehicle, a discarded cigarette, a piece of glass that sufficiently focused the sunlight, or other reasons completely unrelated to a firearm. And unmentioned is that the largest fire in that general area over the past several years was caused by people that had been "camping" there for several months, not shooters or hunters. But the inference we are intended to draw is that the fire was the result of firearms because "guns are bad".
Unfortunately, fires like these just give the BLM another excuse to limit shooting on BLM land. The article continues:
“This year we have definitely seen an uptick in shooting-related fires. We have a fire prevention order in place from May 10 to October 20 on BLM grounds in Idaho that prevents the use of ignitionary devices, steel core ammunition, tracer ammunition, exploding targets, and shooting at metal targets,” says Jablonski.
If people are found violating the order in place, they could be charged a fine of up to $100,000, as well as suppression costs.
And during the winter and spring months, the roads are generally too muddy to be passible to even most four wheel drive vehicles; and the vehicles that can make it through the mud generally destroy the roads to such an extent that the roads are largely impassible even when they finally dry out. So a win-win for the anti-gun BLM.
In his post, "Developing World Problems in the USA," Greg Ellifritz relates how his recent travels within the U.S. has shown him a multitude of problem that he used to only experience in developing countries: broken down equipment such as inoperative coffee makers and card readers (with no set date for repairs), unprofessional looking police, sewage and plumbing issues in businesses, hotels using tricks from the third world to save money, stores regularly out of items, shortages of coins to make change, constant airline cancellations and delays, and heightened security such as locking products up because of increased shop lifting. "I’m starting to think that the United Sates is rapidly becoming a third world country," he writes. "The things that once 'worked' don’t work the same way anymore. The decline is stunningly similar to what I’ve experienced in my travels in the developing world."
He concludes:
I don’t know what to think of these disturbing changes. I don’t know how to fix things. I think it’s only going to get worse in the future. Within the next decade, it’s possible that the United States will be downgraded to an economic “second world” nation. All the signs are here. Pay attention and have a plan to live a far less luxurious lifestyle in the future.
I never thought I would be considering my travels in the developing world as critical training and experience for navigating everyday life in the USA. I predict a rough ride ahead.
You know that saying about bankruptcy: it happens slowly and then suddenly? Well, the U.S. has entered the "suddenly" phase.
And I don't believe this is a transitory phase. The reality is that we are becoming a third-world country. There are many interrelated reasons why this is happening but the following are probably the main reasons:
1. Due to Covid lockdowns and the resulting supply chain disruptions (and I would note that China is still periodically locking down portions of its country), the profligate spending by the Federal government over the past two years, as well as the energy policies pursued by the Biden Administration, we are seeing unprecedented inflation. While the official version is that inflation is running about 8%, I have seen other measures of inflation (including methods which would have been used prior to the 1980s) putting inflation at twice that. Consequently, business are tightening their belts even if that means putting off maintenance or cutting back on services or perks.
2. The people that keep this country running (and I'm mostly looking at men) are dropping out, whether it is retiring or quitting jobs, "laying down" on the job, or never showing up in the first place.
One of the things that the Covid lockdowns and forced unemployment showed people was that there was more to life than working in a thankless job, and so many never went back to work mentally or physically. Older workers have retired, became "disabled" or cut back on work. Old and young workers just aren't putting in the effort. And younger men are increasingly just dropping out of society--something that Glenn Reynolds has explored at length at Instapundit.
3. Longer term, we are replacing our first-world population with a third-world population and, as a result, getting a third-world society. As Joseph Henrich's research has shown, there are certain cultural and psycho-social traits that distinguished the first-world from the third-world; traits which led to the prosperity and success that the West has enjoyed. Steven Pinker, in his book, The Better Angels Of Our Nature, also describes processes, most of which occurred exclusively in Western societies over the last several hundred years, that made us less criminal and violent. So, no, notwithstanding what the talking heads tell us, we are not all the same.
And the problem is that things are just going to get worse. Our immigration and border polices are broken because employers want the cheap labor and our ruling class seriously believes that people are fungible. The war on men, as Glenn Reynolds has called it, would cause all sort of outrage if it were impacting any group other than men (and mostly white men)--similar declines in graduation rates or in college enrollment among women or racial minorities would lead to howls of outrage from liberals and elites everywhere, but instead we hear crickets. Because our ruling class doesn't care.
It isn’t a coincidence that hundreds of food processing plants have been burnt to the ground in the last year. The shutting down of nuclear power plants across Europe, with no replacement energy sources is madness, but is being done by globalist puppet leaders across the continent. Biden and his handlers have banned pipelines, fracking, drilling and anything designed to produce more fossil fuel energy. The green energy lies are spewed 24/7, based upon fantasy thinking. These evil acolytes of Satan want you to starve and freeze and then beg them to save you by surrendering your freedom, liberty, and lives to their totalitarian whims.
In recent years, we have found gigantic copper deposits in Minnesota and a large lithium deposit in Nevada. Both are needed for an on-demand energy information economy. Will environmental wackos let them be mined? No.
California really needs a lot of fresh water. If you think that global warming is happening, they really need a lot of fresh water. Will they build desalination plants along the coast to pump water to farmers in the Central Valley that need it? No. The environmental wackos are against it and people that live on the coast think they will be eyesores.
Instead, no one does anything. Politicians score political points. The problems remain and the citizens get screwed. How do you like paying your taxes now?
The rapid economic collapse that Britain is facing is simply an accelerated version of what the whole of Europe is about to go through; unsustainable borrowing to fund the gap between high energy prices and what households can actually afford. With the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline, there is now no feasible way back. Europe can no longer physically import Russian gas – prices will remain high until Europe builds more energy capacity, which could take years.
What is likely to come of this? High energy prices will render European manufacturing uncompetitive. European manufacturers will be forced to pass through the higher energy costs in the form of higher prices and consumers will find it cheaper to buy products from countries with normal energy prices. The only logical European response to the threat of widespread deindustrialisation is to raise tariffs. This is the only way to equalise prices between more expensive European goods and cheaper foreign goods, therefore artificially supporting European manufacturing. This strategy will lower living standards, depriving Europeans of cheaper goods, but it will at least preserve some manufacturing jobs.
This process looks remarkably like the start of the Great Depression. In the 1920s, due to lopsided financial arrangements initiated in the Treaty of Versailles, western economies accumulated enormous amounts of debt. In 1929, the collapse of the American stock market removed one of the key remaining props and the western economies collapsed. Europe went first and, as trade dried up, America followed it down the hole.
Modern western economies have been accumulating debt for decades. But since the lockdowns in early 2020, this debt accumulation has gone into overdrive. In 2019, Eurozone government debt-to-GDP was 83.8 per cent. In 2020, after the lockdown bailouts were unveiled it shot up to 97.2 per cent. In the same period, Britain’s debt-to-GDP ratio went from 83.8 per cent to 93.9 per cent. These are the largest single increases in history. The run-up in debt during the lockdown was probably unavoidable. But it certainly triggered the beginning of the inflationary pressures we now see everywhere, especially because the lockdowns themselves completely demolished supply chains. So, more money chasing fewer goods. But what has happened since the start of this year is something else entirely.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has triggered an energy price war in Europe that is forcing even higher levels of government borrowing to cover energy costs. Unlike the lockdowns, these energy price increases are putting direct pressure on both prices and the trade balance between countries. Higher energy prices mean that Europe must send more euros and pounds abroad to get energy and so the value of imports rises and these higher import costs are fed through to consumers as businesses try to offset rising energy costs by raising prices. The situation is no longer remotely sustainable. This is almost certainly our 1929 moment.
In the 1930s, Europe fell into an economic black hole. Its economy collapsed and so all the trade that it did with the rest of the world was sucked down the hole with it. Europe then turned in on itself and started raising trade barriers to eke out some semblance of economic normality. This was a classic case of what economists called the ‘fallacy of composition’: what was good for Europe in particular, was bad for the world economy and since Europe was part of the world economy, it turned out to be bad for Europe too. The world slipped into depression.
Could the same thing happen today? The Office of the United States Trade Representative estimates that the United States engaged in over $5.6 trillion of trade – roughly 26 per cent of GDP – in 2019. In the same year, trade with the European Union was estimated at $1.1 trillion – that is approximately 20 per cent of total trade. As European falls into the hole, this trade will fall with it. The American economy, already frail, will likely fall too.
One key difference this time around is that there is a rival economic bloc that could be insulated from these dynamics, the emerging Brics+: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and Argentina – with Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia also joining the queue. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, the Brics countries have been solidifying trade and financial ties and adding new members. It appears that the goal is for these economies to decouple as much as possible from the West. If they are successful in doing that – and it looks like they may be – they may avoid the depression. The Nord Stream sabotage could be the point at which future historians mark the end of western dominance.
Getting back to the point of this post, a declining economy means that businesses have less money to spend on things like fixing toilets or running the air conditioning in hallways. But don't worry because soon you'll own nothing and you will be happy.
As I've noted over the past couple of weeks, as an Empire approaches or enters collapse, the value of citizenship is eroded as the central government eliminates the rights and privileges of citizenship and/or extends those same rights and privileges to non-citizens. At its terminal phase, the collapsing government and the faction that controls that government, will even began treating its citizens that belong to other factions as enemies of the state.
Biden's speech above, made when he was Vice-President under Obama, is telling of this transition as he categorially states that there is nothing special about being an American. He explains that there is nothing--religion, race or ethnicity--that distinguishes Americans from the rest of the world. This isn't really true: the United States is still primarily a Christian nation. And, prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, the United States was primarily a white nation comprised mostly of Western and Northern Europeans with an Anglo-German culture overlay. Prior to the mass migration of the latter half of the 19th Century, the nation was even more ethnically concentrated, being of mostly Anglo-Dutch descent with a large number of Scots to boot. So, until the Federal government began the process of diluting the population, there were both religious and ethnic characteristics that were uniquely American.
We are deep in the phase of citizenship being devalued. Not only has citizenship been diluted by mass immigration, but the last decade has seen strong pushes to extend the rights of citizenship to non-citizens. The roots of this lie much farther back. For instance, we can see this at work in the Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, where the Court struck down a Texas law denying funding for public education of the children of illegal aliens. But the trend has accelerated with some states allowing non-citizens--even illegal aliens--to be employed by state and local governments, allowing illegal aliens to obtain professional licenses, and the push to extend voting rights to non-citizens. See, e.g.:
We pay taxes, immigrants say. We run businesses. We send kids to public schools, drive the roads, ride the subways and fight in America’s wars. We are stakeholders in our communities and shouldn’t be excluded from the decision-making process that affects us.
There’s currently a bill before the New York City Council to let legal permanent residents vote in municipal elections — up to and including mayoral elections. Since 2018, San Francisco has allowed noncitizens to vote in school board elections, regardless of whether they’re in the country legally or not. Chicago allows it for school council elections.
Here in Los Angeles, the L.A. Unified school board authorized a study more than a year ago on how to extend voting rights in school board elections to noncitizen parents, grandparents and caregivers. The study — which would presumably lead to a ballot measure — was delayed by the pandemic but will be revived as school reopens.
As you could probably already guess, Goldberg is all in favor of letting the camel's nose into the tent by allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections.
More concerning is the portrayal of whites as potential terrorists. Of course, we've long seen the federal law enforcement raise the white supremacists bogeyman since at least the 1980s and continuing to the very latest National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.
Under Federal law, “domestic terrorism” is defined as “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
But let's ignore the deaths, mayhem, and destruction that has followed in the wake of the Antifa and BLM riots and attacks intended to intimidate conservatives, force local, state and the national government to reduce funding of police, change law enforcement policies, influence the 2020 Presidential election, and coerce governments and organizations everywhere to engage in "anti-racism" which is racism against whites. That, according to our betters, is legitimate protest.
No, instead federal law enforcement has stated that the number one domestic terrorist threat is "racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists who advocate for the superiority of the white race." This, notwithstanding the fact that Islamic motivated terrorists have killed about the same number of people since 9/11 as all so-called right-wing extremist groups according to this article (from 2017, I believe) at New America. That article relates:
Since 9/11, jihadists have killed 107 people inside the United States. This death toll is similar to that from far-right terrorism (consisting of anti-government, militia, white supremacist, and anti-abortion violence), which has killed 114 people. The United States has also seen attacks in recent years inspired by black separatist/nationalist ideology and ideological misogyny. Individuals motivated by these ideologies have killed twelve and seventeen people respectively and those with Far-Left views have killed one person. America's terrorism problem today is homegrown and is not the province of any one group or ideological perspective.
The number of dead due to Jihadists is undercounted, however, because not all Jihadist attacks have been categorized as terrorism. For instance, the 2009 attack at Ft. Hood by Nidal Hasan is not classified as a terrorist attack although Hasan had been corresponding with the Yemen-based Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, Hasan described himself as a soldier of Allah, and that Hasan's colleagues had been aware of Islamic radicalization. Hassan killed 13, so just adding those to 107 listed above put the post-9/11 Islamic terrorist deaths in the United States at 120--more than the "right wing" attacks--and there are still other Islamic terror attacks that were never counted as terrorist incidents.
And that leads me to the second highest domestic terror threat identified by the federal government, which is "anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, such as militia violent extremists"--a greater threat than ISIS, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray. You know these people. They run the gambit from the ones that were involved in a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (a plot thought up by and encouraged by the FBI), through the people that think Trump actually won the 2020 election, those that disagree with Covid shutdowns and mask mandates, veterans, Christians that hold to Biblical values, and, of course, those that believe the Second Amendment is supposed to be a limit on federal power and authority.
By itself, the foregoing probably might not be concerning to most people. After all, the FBI has generally held white supremacists to be the number one domestic terrorist threat since the FBI was caught illegally wire-tapping left-wing Jewish and black extremist groups in the late 1970s.
Othering is a phenomenon in which some individuals or groups are defined and labeled as not fitting in within the norms of a social group. It is an effect that influences how people perceive and treat those who are viewed as being part of the in-group versus those who are seen as being part of the out-group.
Othering also involves attributing negative characteristics to people or groups that differentiate them from the perceived normative social group.
It is an “us vs. them” way of thinking about human connections and relationships. This process essentially involves looking at others and saying "they are not like me" or "they are not one of us."
Othering is a way of negating another person's individual humanity and, consequently, those that are have been othered are seen as less worthy of dignity and respect.
On an individual level, othering plays a role in the formation of prejudices against people and groups. On a larger scale, it can also play a role in the dehumanization of entire groups of people which can then be exploited to drive changes in institutions, governments, and societies. It can lead to the persecution of marginalized groups, the denial of rights based on group identities, or even acts of violence against others.
Othering is a process whereby a group of people is made to seem fundamentally different, even to the point of making that group seem less than human. This process can trigger instinctive emotional reactions towards members of that group. In many instances, othering has been used to degrade, isolate, and render possible the discrimination, abuse, or persecution of a group.
This "othering" of white Americans is why 13% of the population now makes up more than 50% of actors in advertisements. It is why no new television program or commercial shows a white couple, but instead show a mixed race couple if they have any whites at all.
It's why Damon Young, writing at The Root, wrote that "Whiteness is a public health crises," and that "White supremacy is a virus that, like other viruses, will not die until there are no bodies left for it to infect."
But it goes further than this. It appears that the U.S. government and the faction(s) which control it are waging war against its citizens.
Earlier this year, Robert Zimmerman analyzed the data concerning excess deaths allegedly caused by Covid-19 and concluded that "the COVID-19 epidemic for the past year was not something that warranted a panic. It was simply nothing more than a variation of the flu, though clearly more deadly to the elderly sick. Had we treated it like the flu, we would have acted to first and foremost protect that elderly sick population, while letting everyone else go about their lives normally." Accordingly, "this epidemic was simply not devastating and that all the harsh lockdowns, mask mandates, and panic were simply unnecessary."
No longer is the left screaming “My body! My choice!” Then that mantra for abortion worked to garner it political support from naive followers. Now the mantra is “Your body is ours! Let us do to it what we want or we will oppress you!”
It is a very short leap from merely punishing those who refuse a vaccine to rounding them up in camps to isolate them from the rest of society. From there, it is an even shorter leap to imposing mass executions to keep society clean from such unpure individuals.
This is the direction the left is heading. And if you doubt me try to remember how the demands to fight the Wuhan flu have steadily morphed in the past eighteen months. ...
America is at a very dangerous crossroads. It appears that she is being led by an incompetent moron, but it's probably worse than that: she is led by people who wish to "fundamentally transform" America and place purported global goals above American well-being, and who don't care how many people die to achieve their goals.
David Frum seems to think so. In a piece entitled "Rosenstein’s Departure Is a National Emergency," Frum goes on a stream of consciousness tirade that Rosenstein's departure will somehow upend the rule of law. And, perhaps more worryingly to Frum, "[i]f the president can browbeat Rosenstein into resigning—or even plausibly misrepresent the firing as a resignation—Trump gains the power to bypass the Senate confirmation process under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. He can replace Rosenstein with any serving official previously confirmed by the Senate to any other job." The horror, the horror!
I don't think that it is lost on Frum that senior government officials work at the pleasure of the Chief Executive, the President--he just doesn't want his readers to realize it. Trump would be within his rights--and in accord with the law--to terminate Rosenstein for any reason or no reason at all. Rosenstein works at the sufferance of the President, not the Senate, the federal bureaucracy, or newspaper and magazine columnists.
What we see here is Frum defending the deep state (deep statists?): the unelected bureaucrats that have immunized themselves from the will of the people or their elected representatives, pressing forward with their pet policies and to hell with the citizenry.
Pearl Harbor was a national emergency, the 9/11 attacks were a national emergency. Some statist flunky losing his job is not.
I was disappointed to see the Church release a statement opposing the Utah Medical Marijuana initiative. Not so much because of the Church standing opposed to it--I expected that. No, it was because the statement was not a position statement from Church leaders, but a poorly reasoned legal memorandum from the KIRTON McCONKIE law firm in Salt Lake City. I'm offended not just by the poor legal writing exhibited in the memorandum, but because the use of the memorandum is supposed to present an aura of objectivity where none exists.
The logic and reasoning in the memorandum is atrocious. For instance, the author of the memorandum complains that the initiative does not require a prescription, yet notes that the medical marijuana card would need to be requested by a doctor and is only good for 6 months ... which sounds pretty much like a prescription to me. Perhaps the real issue is that the marijuana will be sold by dispensaries rather than through corporate owned pharmacies. Other points are just silly, such as the argument that felons would be eligible for medical marijuana cards--as if doctors routinely withhold pain medications from felons. ("Sorry that your leg was crushed in an accident, but we can't give you anything for the pain because you are a felon. Here, have a stick to bite down on."). Or complaints that a doctor can give you a prescription after only a single visit--you know, like when you go into an emergency room or emergency care clinic with strep throat and the doctor gives you a prescription without making you come back two or three more times.
I am also disappointed because this statement and memorandum is yet another piece of evidence that Church policy is being guided by lawyers and risk managers.
It is also doctrinally unsound. While a prohibition on recreational use of marijuana could be supported by reference to extent scripture, there are no doctrinal grounds for opposing the use of medical marijuana. The Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) specifically states that "And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving." (D&C 89:10-11). Some may object that marijuana is not an herb (i.e., a seasoning), but it is clear from the context that by "herb," the Lord is taking a more general use of the word to indicate herbage or herbaceous plants. This can be seen by reference to verse 8 which refers to tobacco as an herb even though it is not used to season food. And marijuana is an herbaceous plant.
Finally, it should be noted that the Church leaders are not infallible when it comes to matters of law and public policy. For instance, the Church was a strong supporter of prohibition, which had such a corrosive effect on the Constitution and empowered organized crime, while doing virtually nothing to restrict access to alcoholic beverages. The Church has also lent its support to laws giving special employment and housing rights to homosexuals (by restricting the common citizen's right to not associate) and has been supportive of policies that encourage illegal immigration.
In short, the Church seems to have wasted both Church funds and our time by obtaining this memorandum from a law firm and posting it for us to read.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim who is serving in Congress, is reported as saying that "today's 5-4 Supreme Court decision that upheld the Trump administration's travel ban from several Muslim-majority countries will go down in history as a 'marker of shame' from the high court like Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling that upheld segregation laws as constitutional."
Ellison is wrong. It is Muslims that should be ashamed that Islamic terrorism is so widespread and common that such a ban is necessary.
I don't like mowing the lawn, but I do appreciate that it is a mostly mindless task that allows my me time and opportunity to just think and ponder. Yesterday, my thoughts wondered to the topic of "the meek shall inherit the earth," and who are the meek.
Language has become so imprecise in the modern world, that I think most people misconstrue meekness as passivity or tolerance. I would dare say that a fair number of people believe passivity to be a virtue. The word that is bandied about is "tolerance," but which is really meant to be passive acceptance. I am reminded of Alexander Pope's warning:
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
Only, it is not just vice of which we are to be accepting, but also our own, slow, annihilation.
Over the past two centuries, we have seen the growth of various philosophies that are inimical to human happiness, culminating with the socialist philosophies including so-called progressivism. I written before, and cited to many others that have written or spoke about, Cultural Marxism, which sought to overthrow society, not by violent revolution, but through a slow "march through the institutions" with the intent to poison the culture, and twist it to reflect the Marxist agenda.
During the march through the institutions, our passivity was assured mostly by appealing to our natural goodness and generosity: that we needed to be tolerant and respectful of the views of the left, no matter where and how these views were expressed. Social and moral relativism ruled the land.
But today, with the march through the institutions complete, we are seeing a shift from appealing to our goodness and generosity, to threatening us should we speak out. Thus we see social justice warriors attempt to shame us into acquiescence and passivity. Don't speak up, or you will be labeled a bigot, racist, deplorable, or some other label.
When reading the teachings of Christ in the whole, it is evident that He never intended for his followers to be passive in the face of evil. The meekness he discusses is not that of passivity and acceptance in general, but a submission to God much like a child submits to his or her parents. Christ was outspoken and a man of action and deed. He overthrew the tables of the money changers and was not afraid of calling out sin. Even to his followers, he spoke truths that were hard. He expected us to change in order to become better than we thought, but change is difficult, and it is not easy to accept that we have been doing wrong.
Similarly, Christ never preached tolerance for evil. Quite the contrary, he constantly warned about allowing evil into our lives, whether it was admonition to cut off an offending arm, or to reject the wolves in sheep's clothing.
I believe this applies to the current cultural war. The left has mostly won: abortion is firmly the law of the land, two-parent families and stable marriages are so far in the past that most of us cannot remember when it was the norm, Christianity has been driven from the public square and most Christian religions are now in the process of self-destructing in order to avoid the "sin" of offending a special snowflake or victim group. The left can shame the right all it wants, but the opposite is denied. The only thing left for the cultural Marxist is to destroy "whiteness"--the vestiges of Western civilization and the hold-outs among Christians. And to ensure continued passivity, we that are of European descent are told we are guilty of some irredeemable sin, and that we just need to shut up and listen ... and confess our guilt.
The first step in this is to reject the idea of white guilt. There is no such thing. One of the basic Biblical teachings is that the child is not answerable for the sins of the parents. So, even if Western civilization was not the second best thing to have ever arisen (Christianity being the first), there is still no need for guilt, apology or reparations. SJW's always lie, as Vox Day has written, and its time to stop passively accepting their lies, but actively reject it and defend rightness.
We are soon coming up on the 40th Anniversary of the Church changing its position on admitting blacks to the priesthood, yet it seems to still be a major stumbling block for black members. How big of a stumbling block? Enough that a group has put together a web-site called "SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL: Latter-day Saints Working to End Racism and Become a Zion People." The site offers a list of resources in order to help us "vanilla white" members overcome our alleged racism and, I suppose, recognize the inherent evil of being white. One of the resources is a downloadable PDF entitled “Shoulder to the Wheel: Resources for Ending Racism and White Supremacy”
There is also a page on the website where you can pledge to take some action prior to the June 8 Anniversary to take some action to atone for your whiteness which has some questions, scriptures and articles to consider.
I thought I would answer one of the questions posed:
If you are white, ask yourself how your family’s path would have been different if your ancestors happened to be born African-American. Locate advantages your family enjoyed on account of race, including access to GI Bill resources, or federally-insured home loans.
Well, if my ancestors had been born African-American, my siblings and I would have benefited from affirmative action in college admission and employment. Certainly, with my grades and my SAT scores, I would have been admitted to and had full ride scholarships in one or more Ivy League schools, and a concomitant leg up when it came to employment options. My family didn't have access to GI Bill resources (my father served during the Korean War, but didn't go to college--in fact, he didn't even graduate from high school). I got my home loan well after the 1960's, so I didn't benefit from so-called "red lining."
There were also some comments in the PDF about a couple (i.e., 2) black women that were referred to by the "n-word" and have had people ask to touch their hair (which they claim is an indignity that white women don't suffer). Well, if you are a Caucasian with blond hair living in the Far East, people will touch or rub your hair all of the time, because they think it brings good luck. And, as I discovered in Japan, even if you don't have blond hair, people are still curious to touch a Caucasian's hair because it so fine in comparison to the hair of the Japanese. And I survived and wasn't offended. Imagine that.
My parents were probably what today would be considered "working poor," had a funny last name, and weren't 9th generation Mormon, so I was teased and tormented by other youth in the Church for my poor quality or old clothes, my lack of social status and money, or otherwise didn't fit in. In fact, I was so poorly treated when a child that my parents had me attend the adult Sunday School class for several years rather than the children's class to which I was assigned. I suppose that it should have made me so bitter that I left the Church. So, no I don't have sympathy for a bunch of snow flakes whining about how they were treated decades ago.
I will say this about the this overweening concern about "white privilege" in the Church: it is creating the very division and contention that black members purportedly want to eliminate. I am reminded of 3 Nephi 3:29:
For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
And as for those concerned about "white privilege" in the Church and complain about white members judging others because of their race, they may also want to consider Matthew 7:5: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye."
This week has not been a good week for We the People.
The Trump Administration has tortured the language of the NFA to come up with a regulation banning bump stocks which they hope won't be laughed out of a court. Since intellectual honest judges appear to be an endangered species, the regulation will probably be upheld.
Congress also handed Trump a pork filled spending bill that was basically a big middle finger to red-state America, saying that business was back to normal. The Democrats were openly ecstatic about the bill. Unfortunately, however reluctant he was to do so, Trump signed the bill into law.
And then suddenly, I see posts from all sorts of different conservative web-sites where the authors or commentators are either proclaiming "I told you so" about Trump; or, if they supported Trump, are suddenly turning tails and saying they would support his impeachment because they believe he has betrayed the conservative cause.
Ah, the fickle conservative pundit. Frankly, they remind me of the mobs described in the Gospels that initially welcomed Christ into Jerusalem as their Messiah, and then less than a week later were calling for His blood as the winds of popular favor shifted.
Trump, currently, is conservative America's champion on the battlefield of national politics. It makes no sense to withdraw one's support or, as some have done, pledge to undermine the man when he makes a mistake. It only plays into the hands of the traitorous left if the right abandons its champions. What would you think of a coach that kicked an otherwise exemplary quarterback off the team the first time he threw an intercepted pass? You would, rightly, think the man a fool. To draw the analogy further, we are only just starting the second quarter of the game, and we are still ahead. It is too early to call the game and walk off in a huff.
The NRA has released a statement calling for the ATF to reevaluate the legality of bump-fire stocks, according to The Truth About Guns. (See also these news stories from the BBC and NBC). The full statement reads:
In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.
I'm not sure what the NRA's reasoning is on this. Are they trying to avoid any consideration of Feinstein's legislation? Are they setting the ground for trading bump-fire stocks for national reciprocity (specifically mentioned in the last sentence of the statement)? Are they providing cover for the Republican Congressmen that have already voiced support for banning the devices? Do they see the issue as a lost cause, and simply don't believe it is worth the fight? Or are they selling out certain gun owners as they have done so many times in the past (remembering that the NRA has backed every major gun control bill passed by Congress, including the original NFA)? What I'm sure is that this will be decisive within the gun community and will further erode trust in the NRA.
First as to the decisiveness with the gun community. The truth of the matter is a lot of gun owners probably never heard of a bump-fire stock before this tragedy, would never buy or use one if they had, and don't care if they are banned. It's intended purpose, after all, is purely for fun; it doesn't serve any purpose in hunting or competition. Hence, the "right" to own one is trivial to them, and not worth a fight. However, there are many gun owners (and I think it has increased over the years) that have the attitude of not giving an inch, and won't tolerate a ban on these stocks, or will, at the least, would require some concession from the gun grabbers. For them, the fight is not over this particular item, but a general resistance to being pushed further down the slope to more general gun control. (It is not a foolish position from my perspective of having seen first hand the erosion of gun rights in the late 1980s and early 1990s that led to the assault weapons ban. I believe that the assault weapons ban was allowed to sunset partly because the number of work-arounds to the ban showed how stupid and useless it truly was). Gun owners were able to come around to defending the AR because both of these groups were able to agree that banning one type of firearm could lead to bans on others (and it helped that the AR was increasingly seen as a hunting rifle). But the "firearms must serve some useful purpose like hunting or self-defense or competition" crowd will never agree to fight over what they view as a mere gimmick, and the sense of betrayal that the "not one more inch" crowd will have may not go away.
And this leads to the second issue--the legitimacy of the NRA. I have always found it revealing that when the NRA displays photographs of someone committed to gun rights, or that represent what the NRA stands for, it is generally someone posing with an expensive shotgun for hunting or competition. The NRA is, at heart, a sporting association, not a civil rights group, and this decision will confirm for many that the NRA should not be trusted to represent gun owners.
Although this video is long, it offers up some interesting history as to the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Of course, in hindsight, Frederik Willem de Klerk's deal with the African National Congress (ANC) looks to have been a deal with the devil. However, the interesting point to me is that the Soviets had little interest in funding the ANC, and it nearly went under, when Sweden came to the rescue and infused it with the necessary funds and provided other support. It seems to have been a precursor to Sweden's current betrayal of Europe and its own people by support of for mass immigration. In World War II, Italy was often referred to as the soft underbelly of Europe. It appears that Sweden represents the soft head of Europe.
Both the political left and right in this country claim that they stand for equality. Conservatives stand for equality under the law--that the laws apply equally to everyone and that no one is above the law. In fact, this is source of the concept of rule of law. Under such a system, the government ideally acts as an impartial referee. People will, at least in an ideal situation, rise to the level determined by their talents and efforts (or sink to the levels of their stupidity or laziness). It is inevitable that there will be winners and losers. White and Asian kids will dominate the Ivy League while blacks will dominate most professional sports.
The left, whether they be the fascists calling themselves AntiFa or Black Lives Matter, or the more mundane progressive, are concerned about equality of outcome. Everyone should end up at the same place. To do that, however, society (or rather, the government) must step in help to lift one person, while dragging another person down. Want more blacks and Hispanics in the Ivy Leagues, well, then, you are going to restrict the number of whites and Asian that are admitted. Equality of outcome requires the abandonment of equal rights before the law because, to work, the law must discriminate against one group (whites and Asians) in order to discriminate in favor of other groups (blacks and Hispanics).
You can have equality under law, or equality of outcome, but you cannot have both. The founding principles of the United States is that all men were created equal before the Lord, and therefore were to stand equal before the law. Anti-Fa seeks to have the laws applied differently to different people (or even have different laws for different people) in order that inequalities be erased (i.e., that there be an equal outcome for all). This is incompatible with the founding principles of this great nation. Hence, Anti-Fa are anti-American.
Garrison Keillor would famously describe his fictional every-town of Lake Wobegon, Mich., as "where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."Apparently that describes Harvard. According to a tweet from the Harvard Crimson, "[t]he median grade at Harvard College is an A-, and the most frequently awarded mark is an A." This is not surprising since there have been reports for years of the grade inflation of the so-called "elite" universities. Apparently, once in, it is almost impossible to flunk out. It is a symptom of the entitlement expectations among the elite.
Law enforcement officials and other first responders will participate in a full-scale exercise on April 26 designed to prepare for the possibility of a complex coordinated terror attack in the National Capital Region.
Emergency managers who work together at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) planned the exercise to help protect residents by preparing for an attack involving multiple target locations and teams of perpetrators.
The regional exercise will be staged at six sites in the District of Columbia, suburban Maryland and Northern Virginia, and will involve hundreds of police, fire, and emergency medical service personnel and volunteer actors. The locations include neighborhoods in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the District of Columbia, Prince George’s County, and Arlington and Fairfax Counties. Residents in those neighborhoods will be notified ahead of time to expect the exercise.
Bearing Arms has an article, "This Lawsuit Could Shatter ALL Federal Gun Control Laws," concerning an appeal of a criminal verdict handed down to Shane Cox which will directly challenge the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA). Cox, acting under authority of a Kansas preemption law on firearm and silencer manufacturing, began manufacturing and selling silencers, and eventually drew the attention of the ATF. He was arrested and, after a jury trial, was found to be in violation of the National Firearms Act.
Cox is apparently appealing his conviction on grounds that the NFA violates the Second Amendment. The author of the Bearing Arms article is hopeful that this case will finally get the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize the restrictions the Second Amendment places on the federal government when it comes to firearms.
Don't hold your breath. That ship has long sailed.
As I've noted before, prior to McDonald, one could have made the argument that the Second Amendment reserved to the states any powers restricting or regulating firearms, and that the federal government therefore had no authority to regulate firearms, nor any need to do so because the states could provide any necessary regulations. Under such a system, for instance, Kansas would have been free to allow its citizens to own fully automatic weapons and silencers, and New York could have banned its citizens from owning any firearms. However, McDonald applied the Second Amendment to state governments making it nigh impossible to separate the application of the Second Amendment between the federal government and state governments. Holding that the Second Amendment precluded government regulation would now mean that no government entity would be able to regulate firearms. No court is going to go down that path.
Rather, the issue will be whether a restriction is reasonable (something that the Heller decision allowed), and the appropriate standard of review--essentially what the government has to prove to show that its restriction is reasonable. The possible standards for restrictions on constitutional rights are strict scrutiny (requiring a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored, and the law or regulation must be the least restrictive means to satisfy that government interest), intermediate scrutiny (only requiring that the law or regulation being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest), and rational basis (that the law or regulation being challenged is rationally related to a legitimate government interest), although this latter standard seems to have been ruled out in Heller.
There have been many cases addressing the appropriate level of scrutiny. For instance, in Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011), the court noted that there was a sliding scale of scrutiny applied to the First Amendment depending on the severity of the restrictions. In that case, the restriction was a complete ban on shooting ranges within Chicago, which the court held was so closely aligned with the right to keep and bear arms, and so restrictive, that the court required a "strong public-interest justification" for its ban: something between intermediate and strict scrutiny. The court also noted, in an earlier decision (U.S. v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010)) involving the criminalization of possession of a firearm by someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence, it had only required "intermediate scrutiny" because the claim "was not made by a 'law-abiding, responsible citizen[.]'" Thus, according to the 7th Circuit, intermediate scrutiny is all that is required for criminal statutes regulating firearms.
In U.S. v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010), another possession of a firearm by someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, the court also adopted an intermediate scrutiny standard, but left the door open for a higher level of scrutiny under different circumstances. Nevertheless, in another criminal case (U.S. v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011)), the court again applied intermediate scrutiny to possession of a concealed weapon in a vehicle, refusing a higher level of scrutiny because "a lessor showing is [all that is] necessary with respect to laws that burden the right to keep and bear arms outside of the home," and a higher scrutiny would unduly burden the ability of government to control crime.
The Third Circuit, in U.S. v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3rd Cir. 2010), also adopted intermediate scrutiny for a criminal matter--possession of a firearm where the serial number had been obliterated. The Second Circuit, in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2012), also did not require strict scrutiny when it upheld New York's regulatory scheme for requiring and issuing firearm permits necessary to carry a weapon outside the home.
I could go on, but I think you can see the picture--the courts have already determined that, other than possession inside the home by a "law abiding" citizen, all that is required is intermediate scrutiny. Cox's case not only doesn't involve possession of a firearm in the home by a "law abiding citizen" (he was convicted of the crime of manufacturing a silencer), but also is a commercial rather than personal matter. Even as to the First Amendment right to free speech, the courts have held restrictions on commercial speech to a lower standard than personal or political speech. The same will occur here. Cox may generate new law, but probably not the type or result that gun owners will appreciate. We will have to look to Congress, not the courts, for changes to the NFA.
Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) had recently authored a post to his blog entitled "Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA," which was widely cited. If you haven't seen it, he reasons that a compromise on gun control in the United States is impossible because of an inherent difference in how Democrats and Republicans view and use firearms:
So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”
Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.
So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests.
This inherent viewpoint of Democrats (that guns are only used to shoot innocent people) showed up plainly in a couple of articles at The Truth About Guns today. In "Quote of the Day: The Boston Globe’s Advice for Anyone Thinking About Buying a Gun", TTAG quotes Isvari Mohan as writing: “The only purpose of guns is killing. And the only purpose of the gun industry is to sell them. Next time you think about buying a gun, think about that.” Similarly, in "New England Journal of Medicine: Doctor Knows Best! Gun Control for Everyone!," the portions quoted by TTAG show that the authors of the article in the New England Journal of Medicine believe that it was easy access to firearms that allowed the Orlando killer to make his attack, and conclude that "to consider this scale of death the price of freedom is a perversion of the notion of liberty." These are Democrats just as Adams described them: they only see guns as a threat.
An essay at The Federalist yesterday suggests that a third party candidate could, possibly, maybe win the election given dissatisfaction with the current candidates, especially among millennials. The article, "Yes, There Will Be An Independent Candidate For President," by Bethany Mandel and David Marcus, is essentially an advertisement for a group calling itself "Better for America." They describe the group as "comprised of religious leaders and political operatives" who gathered "in a private room at a swanky hotel in midtown" in "a sincere attempt to find alternatives to Trump’s new vision for conservatism and Hillary Clinton’s corrupt crony politics." According to the article, "[t]hose present represented some of the most influential faith leaders in America—thought leaders in their respective denominations and intellectual circles. Also present were lawyers and those with the practical experience necessary to undergo the steps to get another candidate on the ballot without a party apparatus behind it."
The reason for the lawyers and "those with practical experience" is because of the legal hurdles of getting a candidate on the various state ballets, especially since the deadline for registering as a candidate has already passed in Texas and North Carolina, and other states deadlines expire soon. But, according to the piece, "[w]orking with several experts in the field, the group is confident that through petition-gathering and legal maneuvers ballot access can be achieved in virtually every state, including those with deadlines that have already passed."
The group claims to have three potential candidates that have committed to run if selected, but has not revealed the identity of these candidates. In fact, Better for America seems rather opaque as to who is in the group and what is their political affiliation. Not only does the group not name the three potential candidates, but does not even reveal the identity of the alleged "influential faith leaders" that are advising the group.
Mandel and Marcus indicate that "the week-old organization is not an attempt to undermine Trump." Yet, their admission that the group's goal of winning the election "may sound farfetched, and is indeed unlikely," seems to clearly indicate that the purpose of the group is not to elect a candidate, but to make sure one of the current candidates lose.
But which candidate are they hoping to undermine? It is pretty obvious that it is Trump.
The piece criticizes those that have labeled certain leaders of the Republican party as "RINOS" yet now support Trump.
According to the Wikipedia page on Better for America, the chair of the group is John Kingston, III, who, besides being a Wall Street insider, also served as executive director of the documentary Mitt(about the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney) and is described as a member of "the American Enterprise Institute National Council, and was formerly the Vice Chairman of the National Faith and Values Steering Committee for Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, as well as a member of the National Republican Senatorial Committee Majority Makers and the Republican Governors Association Executive Roundtable." In other words, a reliable party insider. Amee Latour, writing at Bustle, further describes Kingston as "a conservative donor who has worked with other conservatives in the dwindling 'Stop Trump' camp, including William Kristol and Mitt Romney."
The executive director is Anne MacDonald, who the New York Times indicates was the chief of staff to the first lady Laura Bush.
So basically, Better for America is a group comprised of Rockefeller Republicans: i.e., those that have been labelled RINO, lost the last two presidential elections, have no interest in protecting gun rights or our national borders, and are globalists. They are more willing to allow Hillary Clinton win the election, and alter the makeup of the Supreme Court for a generation, than to tolerate a president that might seek to limit America's foreign entanglements. They will not present a candidate that can draw votes away from Hillary Clinton, but they will certainly split the vote for Donald Trump. These are dangerous times.
We don't owe them an apology because using the atomic bombs was the most humane option open to the United States. As Bill Whittle points out in the video embedded below, the use of the atomic bombs was militarily necessary, especially in light of the millions of estimated casualties (both Allied and Japanese) if the islands had to be invaded--fighting that would have gone on for years. Certainly, the Japanese government was not ready to surrender and resistance from the Japanese people would have been immense. Moreover, in both cases, the populace was warned (via dropping of leaflets) of the attack and given time to evacuate.
If the Japanese "victims" want an apology, they should look to their own government to apologize for having involved them in a war they could not win. By using the bombs we brought an early end to the war and saved millions of lives and many additional years of suffering that an invasion would have required. And that is not something that can be ignored.
"The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club."--the character Tyler Durden in Fight Club.
One thing which struck me is how all of these #NeverTrump people seem most bothered by the tendency of Donald to openly voice criticisms of people. Bill Kristol said, “For me it is more of a matter of character, and I don’t know if you can change your character… The way he demeans other people.”
Building off that, he mused:
Imagine you were a closeted gay with a penchant for little boys. What would be most important as a trait, in your eyes, in any individual seeking to join your little club? Would you worry about his policy positions, or whether he would keep his mouth shut about your degeneracy? What would you think if you saw a guy show up who thought nothing of not only speaking openly of your degeneracy, but who would gleefully mock you on Twitter over it, to the amusement of millions of his fans?
Now when I see guys who never mentioned Clinton’s rape and sexual assault history get all upset that Trump is criticizing people openly, I wonder, what are they hiding? Are they the next Dennis Hastert? Will we hear about them abusing little boys in ten years? What is going on behind their closed doors?
But that seems to be the first rule of Washington: you don't talk about what really goes on.
The piece was, in a word, stunning. It was stunning for the honesty with which President Obama’s deputy national security adviser embarrasses the mainstream news media and the Washington press corps for being unable to think for themselves; for the impressive way in which Rhodes climbed the U.S. foreign policy ladder in just a few short years; and for the fact that an administration official still serving in office is naming names and embarrassing the very people in the press that have been instrumental in selling Obama’s foreign policy.
And:
Rosie Gray, a political reporter for BuzzFeed News, was aghast that the White House would allow Rhodes to talk as openly as he did on the record to a journalist, and that Rhodes himself would actually make his thoughts about the press public.
In other words, Rhodes sin was not that he told the truth about the Washington journalists, but that he told the truth about the Washington journalists. He talked.
