On Hiatus

No surprise to any one who still checks in here. There’s simply no free time…and no interest to be honest. At least for now.

I’m deployed again, and have been for a bit now. The Iranians and their proxies demand just about all of my attention…which further compels me to wonder why the hell we’re still over here. That we’re here to defend Iraq against ISIS, is a canard that is well past it’s expiration date. We’re here to keep the eastern Syrian oil fields out of the hands of the Syrians themselves [how’s that for respecting someone’s national sovereignty?]. Remember that if we [or a certain ‘third party’] attack Iran in the waning days of the Trump Regime….or if they strike first. If it happens, remember why our sons and daughters were sacrificed…..

At home, the Leftists and the Trump Cultists continue to try and out-stupid themselves in the race to see who can destroy the Republic and piss on the Constitution more, or quicker. Snowflakes and beta-boi’s on both sides….some dressed in black and some in their airsoft finery….all trying to compensate for poor life choices and low self-esteem….make me glad that I can retreat to my homestead upon my departure from one shithole country to return to an emerging shithole country.

Yep, my country is becoming an embarrassing example on par with so many others…..’exceptionalism’ my ass. And, I’ve earned the right to think such.

The Post-Election Tantrum in a Nutshell

From the reliably Conservative Andrew McCarthy at National Review, on 13 Dec:

So what happened in Wisconsin?

Judge Ludwig denied the state’s claims that the campaign lacked standing. Instead, he gave the campaign the hearing they asked for — the opportunity to call witnesses and submit damning exhibits. Yet, when it got down to brass tacks, the morning of the hearing, it turned out there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case. The president’s counsel basically said: Never mind, we don’t need to present all our proof . . . we’ll just stipulate to all the relevant facts and argue legal principles.

In the end, after all the heated rhetoric, what did they tell the court the case was really about? Just three differences over the manner in which the election was administered — to all of which, as Ludwig pointed out, the campaign could have objected before the election if these matters had actually been of great moment.

There was no there there. Despite telling the country for weeks that this was the most rigged election in history, the campaign didn’t think it was worth calling a single witness. Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, “Never mind.”

The legal arguments were not much more weighty than the vacant factual presentation.

The Trump team started out as audaciously on claimed constitutional violations as it had been on public allegations of fraud. It claimed Wisconsin officials had run roughshod over the Constitution’s Electors Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and First Amendment — the array of allegations they’ve made in other battleground states as well. When it became clear, however, that the court was willing to entertain the president’s case but would scrutinize it closely, the Trump team quickly dropped the First Amendment and Due Process claims. In addition, as Ludwig recounts, the president’s counsel “offer[ed] no clue of a coherent Equal Protection theory,” and “offered neither evidence nor argument to support such a claim.”

More at the link

And the money shot: But every time a court offers him an opportunity to establish by proof what he is promoting by Twitter, Team Trump folds. Why is that?

Congress finally did something right

And I agree with Matt Gaetz to boot…

The House voted Friday on the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, or MORE Act, which decriminalizes cannabis and clears the way to erase nonviolent federal marijuana convictions. The Senate is unlikely to approve the bill.

The MORE Act also creates pathways for ownership opportunities in the emerging industry, allows veterans to obtain medical cannabis recommendations from Veteran Affairs doctors, and establishes funding sources to reinvest in communities disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. Link

Why is it a good thing? A million reasons, even besides ending the disastrous and misnomered “war on drugs”, but one example:

Two recent studies point to the way that cannabinoids may help treat PTSD. One shows how cannabis can reduce activity in the amygdala – a part of the brain associated with fear responses to threats. Meanwhile, another suggests that the plant’s cannabinoids could play a role in extinguishing traumatic memories. Both effects could be therapeutic for those suffering from PTSD – according to recent studies

And finally, Matt Gaetz….who took off his ‘MAGA’ kneepads long enough to co-sponsor sensible, pro-Liberty legislation.

“The MORE Act is flawed; it uses cannabis policy to do a great deal of social engineering to create new taxes and new programs and redistribution of assets. But I am here as the only Republican co-sponsor of the MORE Act, and I’m voting for it because the federal government has lied to the people of this country about marijuana for a generation.” – Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-FL

The false dichotomy of voting

H/t here

Yes, we have the “freedom” to vote, the same way we tell our children they have the “choice” to obey. It’s presented as freedom, and as a choice, but it’s really not. It’s a false dichotomy that is self-supporting and self-perpetuating. If every election is “the most important election of our lifetime,” then we can never “sit this one out.” We can never not vote. We can never vote for a third party candidate because doing so, according to left and right, only helps the opposition. So we can and should and have to vote for a candidate that, all things considered, we don’t really like or want, but because we live in a “democracy,” he is the best we have. And this is freedom? There’s more freedom in choosing a coffee creamer than choosing a president.

A single vote does not influence an election. As I’ve suggested previously, voting incurs an opportunity cost, which, while potentially small, necessarily means we can’t do something else while we’re spending time voting or toward the election process. If one works on a campaign, or at a phone bank, or puts up signs, or anything else beyond just voting, their opportunity cost goes up even more. Maybe to some this is worth it, but if voters confronted the reality that their single vote doesn’t matter, I doubt any opportunity cost would be worth it.

Post-Election Musings

Not my own, but from the Tenth Amendment Center. I’m pretty busy at the moment, but did enjoy the spectacle of the mouth-breathers who normally mob up and shout “CNN sucks!”….and now shouting “Fox sucks”…because they had the audacity not to be State Media and actually called Arizona based on their analysis.

Like you, I don’t know who won. But what I do know is this – no matter what happens with the counting, at the end of the day, we’re still facing the largest government in the history of the world.

I don’t say that lightly. 

When it comes to spending, for example, the so-called “federal” government in Washington D.C. spends nearly double what China does. And it spends almost 8-times more per capita than China’s “socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship.”

This is nothing like the government James Madison told us would have powers that are “few and defined.” Not even close.

But by all means, let’s focus solely on the popularity contest and how it gives us the ‘feelz’ or the ‘madz’………we get the government we deserve….every single time.

Is this guy for real? Part II *Updated*

Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA. Must have final total on November 3rd. – Donald J. Trump October 27, 2020

Bolding mine.

That’s not that works Little Donnie. Not ever.

Over half of the States in the Union mandate that absentee ballots can not be counted until on or after Election Day. No State certifies its election results on Election Day itself, for reasons obvious to everyone but Trump.

The earliest I found was Delaware with a date of 5 November. All others are beyond that, with many extending into December if necessary.

The media….and only the media, “calls” results on Election Day…based on exit polling and precinct totals.

 So NOW, this guy wants the election called by the “fake news”, based on “fake polls”?

So in essence, Trump is saying that he would rather disenfranchise the votes of our Servicemen & women are are stationed outside of their home state or serving overseas [not to mention anyone else who had a valid reason to vote absentee, or none at all as permitted by their respective state]. Doesn’t seem like “supporting the troops” to me.

Either Trump is stupid…..or he thinks you’re stupid. You decide.

——-Update—–

Jesus, the stupid just doubled down:

Strongly Trending (Google) since immediately after the second debate is CAN I CHANGE MY VOTE? This refers changing it to me. The answer in most states is YES. Go do it. Most important Election of your life!1:53 PM · Oct 27, 2020

Sure, go try and commit voter fraud. Exactly what the Chief Law Enforcement officer in the nation should be telling people to do. Note that he directs this specifically at those who would vote for him. Thus, the answer to the question above is answered.

He thinks you’re stupid

– On edit, it turns out that in some states, you can change your early vote. It’s cute though, that he thinks it’s all Biden voters that had a change of heart…..

Trump just bragged about executing an American Citizen

At his Covid petri-dish rally today:

“We sent in the U.S. Marshals, took 15 minutes and it was over. They knew who he was, they didn’t want to arrest him, and 15 minutes — that ended.”

Yep, the President of the United States bragged to sycophants, that his armed agents of the State, intentionally executed an American Citizen. What the U.S. Marshall’s knew, or intended……is not known…..all we have to go on, is the words of the Enemy of the State.

Trump is a Traitor to the Republic, as are those who keep him in power.

* As an addendum, it appears that Steve Scully got suspended from the venerable C-SPAN for lying about an alleged Twitter hack. Good. Liars and hypocrites are among the lowest forms of life.

POTUS Debate #1

I’m actually planning to watch tonight’s debate, unlike in years past….the slate of candidates remains the same: two old white dudes [Hillary was the outlier], neither of whom I’m voting for. No, tonight I’m tuning in for the shit-show.

And courtesy of mrom13, I have an apropos drinking game to accompany said shit-show……though I have to go into work early tomorrow morning, so I have to maintain consciousness .

Start with two full drinks. Down 1 whole drink when the moderator welcomes the candidates, and immediately pour out the other drink in reverence to all of the oppressed third party candidates, who were objectively better than these two. Then follow these rules:

1) Drink every time a candidate speaks over the moderator.

2) Drink every time the moderator asks an obviously biased or inflammatory question.

3) Drink every time Joe Biden takes credit for a Barak Obama policy.

4) Drink every time Trump denies a fact.

5) Drink every time a candidate mentions a big government program.

6) If a candidate mentions a policy that violates the constitution, the first person to cite the article or amendment, gets to make a rule.

7) If someone requests to change the channel because the current channel is biased, they become the drink fetcher and are now responsible for making sure everyone has a drink at all time. Punishment for an empty glass, bottle, can, or cup is determined by a simple majority of the group.

8) The owner of the house should provide a dunce cap. If anyone openly cheers when a candidate makes a point, they should be forced to stand in the corner with the dunce cap on.

9) If debating on the Joe Rogan podcast is mentioned, the game is over.

10) Finish the case, keg, bottle or box once you’ve given up all hope. Then go to bed and prepare to move all liquid assets to an off shore account.

Yeah…….we’ll see if I can hang…but damn!

The Next SCOTUS Justice and the 2A

I’m undoubtedly going to have some severe disagreements with the next presumptive SCOTUS Justice [though I’m certain the Mark Levins of the sock-puppet demographic will not refer to her as a “black-robed tyrant”], but at least Amy Comey Barrett seems to have a liberty-minded view of the 2nd Amendment [let’s hope likewise for the rest of the Bill of Rights].

From Reason Magazine:

In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to own guns for self-defense. At the same time, the majority opinion mentioned some “presumptively lawful regulatory measures,” including “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” But both Barrett and her two colleagues on a 7th Circuit panel, who upheld the federal and Wisconsin bans that Kanter challenged, agreed that Heller did not settle the question of whether the Second Amendment allows the government to disarm someone like him.

“The constitutionality of felon dispossession was not before the Court in Heller, and because it explicitly deferred analysis of this issue, the scope of its assertion is unclear,” Barrett wrote. “For example, does ‘presumptively lawful’ mean that such regulations are presumed lawful unless a historical study shows otherwise? Does it mean that as-applied challenges are available? Does the Court’s reference to ‘felons’ suggest that the legislature cannot disqualify misdemeanants from possessing guns? Does the word ‘longstanding’ mean that prohibitions of recent vintage are suspect?”

In addressing a question that she and the majority agreed Heller left unresolved, Barrett considered English common law, proposed and ratified provisions of state constitutions in the U.S., and firearm restrictions enacted in the 18th and 19th centuries. Her conclusion:

History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward—legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.

That rationale does not easily fit laws that take away the Second Amendment rights of anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony (or, under federal law, “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” which is similar but not quite the same thing), no matter how long ago the offense occurred and whether or not it involved violence or even an identifiable victim. While Kanter ripped off Medicare (and therefore taxpayers), the government presented no evidence that his particular crime or any other personal characteristics showed he had violent tendencies that posed a threat to public safety.

More at the link.