Previous month:
August 23, 2020 - August 29, 2020
Next month:
September 6, 2020 - September 12, 2020



Once again, we see the dishonest media, this time the Washington Post, conditioning the political battlefield with scenarios that favor the progressive socialist Democrats…

What’s the worst that could happen?
The election will likely spark violence — and a constitutional crisis

We wanted to know: What’s the worst thing that could happen to our country during the presidential election? President Trump has broken countless norms and ignored countless laws during his time in office, and while my colleagues and I at the Transition Integrity Project didn’t want to lie awake at night contemplating the ways the American experiment could fail, we realized that identifying the most serious risks to our democracy might be the best way to avert a November disaster. So we built a series of war games, sought out some of the most accomplished Republicans, Democrats, civil servants, media experts, pollsters and strategists around, and asked them to imagine what they’d do in a range of election and transition scenarios.

[OCS: I didn’t see the scenario where a cognitively-impaired candidate like Joe Biden suddenly renounces the Presidency or is forced out by the cabinet using the 25th Amendment – leaving America with an unelected, inexperienced, radical, racist socialist who is every bit an empty suit as former President Barack Obama.]

A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power. Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis.

[OCS: Are they assuming that those who will cause violence in America are the same people rioting in our streets today? The socialist/communist Bernie Bros led by professional agitators and activists? Is this how they are almost guaranteeing a cessation of hostilities? If this is true, we can assume the violence and radicals in the streets are most likely organized, funded, and working on behalf of the Democrats.

One might even assume that this is a not-so-subtle threat to citizens to scare them into voting Democrat. ]

In the “Trump win” scenario, desperate Democrats — stunned by yet another election won by the candidate with fewer votes after credible claims of foreign interference and voter suppression — also sought to send rival slates of electors to Congress.

[OCS: Desperate Democrats? Are these Democrat voters not ordinary Americans, with the same values and patriotism that would keep them off the streets? Why would they be stunned, given the results of the last election?

As for claims of foreign interference, lest we not forget, almost all of the claims of foreign interference in 2016 were ginned-up by the Obama-Clinton team and compromised those intelligence and law enforcement agencies who would most likely be the ones to put forth an “authoritative claim” of domestic or foreign interference based on evidence. But, then again, we saw these same people manipulate evidence and lie to a Court.

As for voter suppression, this has been the claim of every Democrat when the results were not favorable to their candidacy.

And, it is the Democrats that have engaged a cadre of lawyers to mount challenges to votes and voters whenever the count falls behind.]

They even floated the idea of encouraging secessionist movements in California and the Pacific Northwest unless GOP congressional leaders agreed to a series of reforms, including the division of California into five smaller states to ensure better Senate representation of its vast population, and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico.

[OCS: Whoops, the jig is up. This is a radical progressive socialist Democrat idea to provide them with a perpetual majority and power.]

While both parties appealed to the courts as well as to public opinion, the legal experts in our exercises pointed out that the judicial system might well avoid rendering decisions on the central issues, since courts might see them as fundamentally political, rather than judicial, in nature. Other players noted that there was, in any case, no guarantee that the losing side would accept a ruling from a highly politicized Supreme Court.

[OCS: Legal experts? Are they not aware of the fact that the fight will be fought in Congress and there are set procedures and timelines for handling the electors that will determine the vote. The popular vote means diddly-squat as we saw in the last election.]

National Guard troops line up outside the White House on June 2. President Trump has at times threatened to use the military to quell unrest in American cities. 

[OCS: If the governors – and remember the rioting, looting, and arson is taking place in Democrat-governed cities with the tacit approval of the Democrat leadership – do not use the National Guard, they can be federalized to quell an insurrection, which would certainly be descriptive of organized anarchy and violent civil disobedience.]

But there’s some good news: This kind of exercise doesn’t predict the future. In fact, war-gaming seeks to forecast all the things that could go wrong — precisely to prevent them from happening in real life. And if the Transition Integrity Project’s exercises highlighted various bleak possibilities, they also suggested some ways we might, as a nation, avoid democratic collapse.

[OCS: While this exercise does not predict the future, it does serve as a warning to ordinary Americans that a Trump win is very problematical. Our nation is nowhere near democratic collapse unless you believe the stories told by Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Liar-in-Chief, Representative Adam Schiff.]

The media also has an important role. Responsible outlets can help educate the public about the possibility — indeed, the likelihood — that there won’t be a clear winner on election night because an accurate count may take weeks, given the large number of mail-in ballots expected in this unprecedented mid-pandemic election.

[OCS: There are few “responsible” mainstream media outlets -- as a simple content analysis of most major outlets demonstrates an overwhelming bias toward progressive socialist Democrats. And, an equally strong hatred of President Trump which could be classified as a mental illness called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” It is the Democrats who are urging mail ballots while they say nothing about masses of people protesting in the streets or moving drugs around America. It is the Democrats who are preparing to bollix-up the count with legal filings.

Truth-be-told, an accurate count is not even necessary because it is the state legislatures and electors whose vote counts. And, if a state does not submit their electoral papers by the prescribed time, their vote is omitted. If two sets of electors arrives, the matter is settled in Congress, not the courts.]

Journalists can also help people understand that voter fraud is extraordinarily rare, and, in particular, that there’s nothing nefarious about voting by mail.

[OCS: Voter fraud is not that rare, but this appears to be the first time massive voter fraud might be attempted. There is no guarantee that the past will predict the future when you are dealing with fundamentally dishonest politicians.]

Social media platforms can commit to protecting the democratic process, by rapidly removing or correcting false statements spread by foreign or domestic disinformation campaigns and by ensuring that their platforms aren’t used to incite or plan violence.

[OCS: If any social media platform attempts to influence the election, they should lose all of their Section 230 protections and both the organization and its senior officers be criminally charged with interfering in an election. Perhaps even charged for an illegal in-kind donation to a political party.]

To read the entire article – <Source>

To answer the top-line question, what’s the worst that could happen?

If the Communist-infiltrated Democrats win, they could continue to cover up their 2016 coup d ‘état attempt and change institutional power so, like California, there is a permanent Democrat majority, destroying America from within and making us vulnerable to our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

If President Trump wins by an unassailable margin in the Electoral College, look for the “resistance” to continue, an accelerated push to take over local and state offices, with the presidential fight transferred to 2024.

Bottom line…

As always, “We the People” will get screwed until the Democrats are purged of communists and single-minded special interests and until the GOP grows the cojones to aggressively push-back against evildoers and tyranny.


-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


 Reality is witnessing events as they are, not how the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, or MSNBC tell you how they are…


The chickens are coming home to roost…

Ted Wheeler, the Democrat Mayor and Police Commissioner of Portland, Oregon, is moving out of his $840,000 apartment in a 114-unit + retail space building because the “peaceful protesters” he has protected for months damaged the lobby of his building and tried to set it ablaze without regard to the potentially fatal consequences to the occupants. In a message to his neighbors, Wheeler apologized. 

“I want to express my sincere apologies for the damage to our home and the fear that you are experiencing due to my position. It’s unfair to all of you who have no role in politics or in my administration.” <Source>

Unfair? No, Ted! It’s downright criminal, and you have nobody to blame other than yourself and your uber-progressive city council. As the Mayor and the Police Commissioner, it was your police that were ordered to “stand down” -- and to abandon a police station rather than protect it. It was you who played Democrat politics and blamed President Trump as he continued to offer federal assistance in quelling the insurrection. Yes, insurrection -- the idea of a “peaceful protest” has long past. Even law enforcement is disgusted as the Portland District Attorney continues to dismiss many of the cases against protesters and those who have attacked police officers. Leading many officers to disengage from a revolving-door justice system.  Of course, there was no such apology to the community who has lost lives and livelihoods to the violent mobs that roam at will throughout the town.

Common sense should inform you…

The first responsibility of any government: local, state, or federal, is to protect its people. Prioritizing funding for first-responders (fire, police), utilities (water, electricity, gas), and public health (sanitation) before social programs that are little more than welfare to the more disruptive elements of our society. 

Most Americans are generous, decent people who have no allegiance to the warring political factions in the streets and want to go about their day-to-day affairs unmolested by protesters or the government, where their basic humanity towards neighbors trumps religious, cultural, and political differences.

Thinking about it now...

Why do we, as a city, county, state, or nation, continue to back away when rogue elements like Antifa and Black Lives Matter act aggressively and violently?

I don’t pretend to understand all of the political nuances of campaign strategy, but I do know that you can’t allow a political or criminal mob like the one that continues to destroy downtown Portland, Oregon, to get away with anything without risking a much more significant challenge in the future.

I am tired of being told, “Be patient. Don’t worry; we’ll get back to normal after the election -- especially if you vote for the Democrats."

We need a political counter-puncher who hits back harder than they are hit. Someone with a sense of right and wrong and a willingness to take action to redress lawlessness. 

What are the Democrats offering?

The Democrats, whose campaigns are based on little more than “orange-man bad” and who are promising the change that they have failed to deliver for decades, are offering nothing new.

In most riot-torn areas, already governed by Democrats, why would you expect different behavior when the Democrats have learned that their ill-informed constituents are weak and will take the path of least resistance?

If you are looking for abundance, health, and happiness, just read the 92-page Democrat platform. It is a step-by-step blueprint for a dystopian third-world nation filled with needless sacrifice and shared misery: bigger and more repressive government, higher taxes, and fewer personal freedoms.

It’s no longer a peaceful protest, it’s civil insurrection…

It is unconscionable that our elected and appointed leadership is dithering over how best to deal with peaceful protests that are no longer protests but have become hard-core agitation and an opportunity to loot local merchants.

As the night follows the day, if you see the warning signs and don't heed them, you could reasonably expect bad things to follow. That is the hard, cold truth of life, based on the immutable laws of human nature.

Blaming politicians is a waste of time. We, as a people, need to learn from our mistakes, take responsibility for our actions, and get better and smarter, faster. The cold reality is that our world is becoming increasingly complex, dangerous, and interdependent.

Blaming others is a waste of time. It would be best if you learned from your mistakes, take responsibility, and get better and smarter -- faster. The reality is that the world is becoming increasingly complex, dangerous, and interdependent on factors beyond our immediate control. When rogue politicians, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the incorrigible liar Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), misbehave, they need to be removed at the ballot box or somehow face the consequences of their actions.

Bottom line…

Day-by-day, we are seeing our Constitution and personal freedoms eroded by politicians who mouth “bumper sticker” platitudes, often claiming their decisions are backed by science. Science that they never seem able to produce, but distracting us with yet another cherry-picked “expert” who speaks with certitude about an unknowable future.

All we can do is hope that people wake-up and make the right decision at the ballot box. Voting as if their life, their community, and their nation was facing a grave risk.

What the future will bring is up to you. You must vote and to encourage others to vote.

Whatever new political threats arise, no matter where they originate, it is imperative that our elected officials respond promptly with reasoned and decisive action. I cannot even begin to imagine such a response from a candidate who must hide in his basement and who requires a teleprompter for a twelve-minute speech. Even worse, I cannot imagine Kamala Harris, the female version of Barack Obama, leading our nation out of its present crisis.

We are so screwed.


-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



In an effort to gaslight the American public, House Representative Bill Foster (D-IL), the only physicist in Congress, has circulated a request to select recipients of the Nobel Prize who would endorse Joe Biden. As if some of their prestige would transfer to a candidate who can only function for twelve minutes – and with the use of a teleprompter. Of course, he was whisked away before anyone in the hand-picked mainstream media could ask him a question that has not been scripted and placed on the teleprompter.

The so-called “letter” is only a signed statement of support with generic reasons…

Nobel Laureates endorse Joe Biden

81 American Nobel Laureates in Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine have signed this letter to express their support for former Vice President Joe Biden in the 2020 election for President of the United States.

At no time in our nation’s history has there been a greater need for our leaders to appreciate the value of science in formulating public policy.

[OCS:  Every leader in the history of the United States has accepted the value of science in formulating public policy. Unfortunately, one can pick and choose their experts to support almost any political agenda.

There is no proof that any single expert or group of experts has all of the answers, and that ignoring contrarian viewpoints over the “fashionable” science of the day is productive in the formulation of public policy.

Sometimes the scientific answer is taken as an absolute and does not accept the inalienable rights of individuals to make their own decisions and govern their own lives.

This is part of the Marxist philosophy that posits that our society needs to be run by an elite group of individuals who use science and experts to make policies to govern in the best interests of ALL of the “people.”]

During his long record of public service, Joe Biden has consistently demonstrated his willingness to listen to experts, his understanding of the value of international collaboration in research, and his respect for the contribution that immigrants make to the intellectual life of our country.

[OCS: Again, every leader in the history of the United States shows a willingness to listen to experts.

International collaboration is the norm for most routine science with the exception of dual-use research that can be adapted for military use.

Science is science and I know of no individuals who regard the immigration status of scientists over the science. The scientific method is color blind and all research is a process of controlled skepticism where findings and conclusions are presented freely for replication, validation, nullification, or simply a statement of need for further research.]

As American citizens and as scientists, we wholeheartedly endorse Joe Biden for President.

[OCS: First, one may consider that some of these individuals have a conflict of interest in that their institutions and individual work may be tied to government research grants and funding.

And second, one does not know if their scientific training and experience has been used to investigate and analyze the political nature of the Democrat Party, the competence of Joe Biden as a leader, evaluate evidence of Biden’s criminal activity and corruption, and consider that Biden's political path as being on the wrong side of history over his lengthy career.]

To read the 81 names, the letter can be found here.

[OCS: Between 1901 and 2019, there have been 950 Nobel Laureates: 923 individuals and 27 organizations. One can claim that 8.77573131% of the individuals are listed. I would be interested in how many requests were made, how many Laureates do not identify as Democrats, and how many people tossed the request in the trash where it belongs.

There are six Nobel Prize categories: physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, peace, and economics. And, unfortunately, there seems to be a gross omission in the list of Nobel Laureates related to the field most relevant to a political discussion: ECONOMICS.]

Bottom line…

There is no tangible evidence that a smart individual who has specialized subject-matter knowledge in one area has taken the time and effort to analyze the political situation in the United States and make a determination of the comparative benefits of a Biden administration over Trump administration.

And speaking of “experts,” let us consider the advice of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the noted physician/scientist who has worked for the government for 52-years and who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 (36-years). He first told us that the coronavirus was not a “thing” and was comparable to the seasonal flu. Then he told us something different. He provided the President of the United States with advice based on inadequate models, which proved to be grossly incorrect. And, he told us not to wear masks, followed by a suggestion to wear a mask. The man has been all over media opining on subjects outside of his expertise and which appear worthless when one considers the broader economy and public policy. So much for the “experts.” Of course, as is with most “experts,” he refused to listen to, or consult with, other equally-qualified experts who held contrarian opinions. Thus the so-called science failed to inform public policy and has nearly destroyed many cities whose governors claim “science” informs their actions – but cannot produce any valid science to back their public policies.

The use of experts has its limitations, and subject-matter knowledge is not wisdom. How I long for a pragmatic multi-disciplinary thinker like Dick Feynman – himself a Nobel Laureate in physics.

In the final analysis, perhaps we should ask ourselves what might happen if a medical expert looks at the medical evidence and suggests that we shut down our economy and destroy lives, jobs, and our country? Whoops! That's an in-progress scenario. 

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


The good guys…


The progressive socialist democrats are, once again, mounting a campaign to destroy the National Rifle Association. Not only have elected officials tacitly approved the rioting, looting, arson, and the destruction of public and private property in Democrat-governed cities, they are now demanding that the Internal Revenue Service investigate and reconsider the NRA’s tax-exempt status.

They know, that members of the NRA take the Second Amendment seriously and they pose an armed threat to governmental tyranny and, specifically, lawless individuals and groups who are attacking our cities should they attack residential areas.

It does not surprise me that the attack is being led by two California House members who have a history of California-style radicalism…

Reps. Gomez and Schneider Lead Call for IRS to Investigate NRA Tax-Exempt Status

Reps. Jimmy Gomez and Brad Schneider led members of the Ways & Means and Oversight & Reform Committees in formally calling on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to review the tax-exempt status of both the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the NRA Foundation. 

In light of the recent reports of the NRA’s self-dealing and abuse of its tax status by the New York Attorney General and by Rep. Schneider, the 33 Members wrote the below letter to Commissioner Rettig calling for further investigation:

“The lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General outlined a pattern of egregious self-dealing by directors or members in control of the organizations, looting corporate assets solely for personal benefit, and using vendors and contractors to hide improper use of funds or conflicts of interest,” the letter states. “In light of this new information, we respectfully ask that you review whether the recent allegations against the NRA and NRA Foundation warrant reconsideration of the organizations’ federal tax-exempt status under Sections 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) of the IRC…No organization that wantonly and repeatedly abuses these rules in order to advance and enrich the financial interests of its leaders should be allowed to enjoy privileged tax-exempt status.”

[OCS: I do not see similar attacks on Planned Parenthood or other organizations which have a history of illegal behavior, financial shenanigans, and poor governance.]

The House Ways & Means Committee has jurisdiction over the IRS and federal tax law, and the Oversight and Reform Committee has jurisdiction over all aspects of the federal government.

The following Members of the Ways & Means Committee signed the letter: Gomez, Schneider, Beyer, D. Davis, M. Thompson, Blumenauer, Pascrell, DelBene, Moore, Suozzi, Evans, Murphy, Kildee, Panetta, Chu, Sanchez, Higgins, Boyle, Larson, Sewell, Horsford, Doggett

The following Members of the Oversight Committee signed the letter: R. Kelly, Khanna, Norton, Lynch, Cooper, Speier, Connelly, Ocasio-Cortez, Sarbanes, DeSaulnier, Krishnamoorthi

[OCS: Consider that many of the above members who signed the letter have associations with individuals and organizations that support radical progressivism, socialism, and communism.]

The full text of the letter is below:

Dear Commissioner Rettig:

As members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Oversight and Reform Committee, we write today to express our serious concerns about the continued tax-exempt status of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and NRA Foundation. The Ways and Means Committee takes seriously its responsibility to exercise rigorous oversight of the administration of our federal tax laws by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Oversight and Reform Committee is the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X. Together, we would like to ensure that these tax-exempt organizations are operating within the spirit and letter of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

We are increasingly concerned about the need for an investigation into the NRA, which has been granted tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) of the IRC, and the NRA Foundation, which has been granted tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC. Tax-exempt organizations must adhere to strict, specific requirements to retain their exemption from federal tax law – and no tax-exempt organization is above the law.

As most recently highlighted by allegations against these organizations filed by the Attorneys General of New York and the District of Columbia, and supported by an independent investigation by a member of the Ways and Means Committee, both the NRA and the NRA Foundation are accused of a disturbing pattern of abusing their New York not-for profit, charitable membership corporation status. Legal complaints filed by the Attorneys General of New York and the District of Columbia document the ways in which the NRA and the NRA Foundation persistently operated in a manner that flew in the face of their New York not-for-profit status.         

In light of this new information, we respectfully ask that you review whether the recent allegations against the NRA and NRA Foundation warrant reconsideration of the organizations’ federal tax-exempt status under Sections 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) of the IRC.

Should you determine the IRS lacks the sufficient resources or information to undertake a thorough review, we ask that you provide recommendations to Congress on how we can best ensure the IRS is able to enforce requirements for tax-exempt organizations. <Source>

Of course, the NRA and its membership are fighting back…

The NRA filed a lawsuit that alleges that the New York Attorney General, who is demanding that the NRA be dissolved, is guilty of defamation and a violation of the NRA’s constitutional rights to free speech. James referred to the NRA as a terrorist organization in her 2018 election campaign and appears politically motivated.

Of course, it appears that the NRA may move to a friendlier state that is not democrat governed and has not been decimated by election-related riots tacitly approved by the Democrats.

A demonstration of rank political hypocrisy…

The progressive socialist democrats scream about the need for gun control, but when push comes to shove, they ignore gun-related charges and release criminals into our communities.


"Law enforcement agents killed Michael Forest Reinoehl while trying to arrest him, four officials said. He was being investigated in the fatal shooting of a supporter of a far-right group."

It appears that the Portland, Oregon police are investigating a murder suspect that shot and killed an innocent person wearing a hat with the insignia of Patriot Prayer in a targeted attack. The alleged suspect self-identifies as a Black Lives Matter supporter and 100% Antifa. He sports a large tattoo of a raised black fist on his neck and appears to have participated in other riots.

“Every revolution needs people that are willing and ready to fight. There are many of us protesters that are just protesting without a clue of where that will lead. That’s just the beginning that’s where the fight starts. If that’s as far and you can take it thank you for your participation but please stand aside and support the ones that are willing to fight,”

“I am 100% ANTIFA all the way! I am willing to fight for my brothers and sisters! Even if some of them are too ignorant to realize what Antifa truly stands for,\. We are currently living through a crucial point in Humanities [sic] evolution. We truly have an opportunity right now to right now to fix everything.  It will be a war and like all wars there will be casualties.” <Source>

Now for the shocker…

On July 5, police arrested the suspect amid a violent riot in front of the federal courthouse. Authorities charged him with possessing a loaded gun in a public place, resisting arrest, and interfering with police. Although he was given a court date later that month, authorities dropped the charges on July 30. Court records do not explain why prosecutors decided to drop the charges. The suspect did not spend any time behind bars.

The suspect also failed to appear for a court date after state police arrested him and his 17-year-old son in a June 8 speed-racing case in eastern Oregon. According to state police, he and his son were racing in two different cars at speeds of up to 111 mph after midnight. The suspect also faces allegations of driving under the influence of a controlled substance, recklessly endangering another, unlawful possession of a gun, and driving while suspended and uninsured. <Source>

And yet, he walks free?

Bottom line…

When the police are ordered to stand-down by progressive democrat socialists and the rioting mob is approaching, who has your back? That’s right, you are on your own and have an inalienable right to self-defense. Especially when government services break down and organized anarchists run amok.

I have spent my entire life in the company of men, women, and children of all races, religions, national origins, and sexual preferences at shooting events and club meetings. These are ordinary Americans who support and defend our Constitution from those who are attempting to turn America into a third-world nation.

Fight back. Know your rights. And, most importantly VOTE!



-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


Considering that looting or destroying a person’s property is illegal, immoral, and can be life-altering for the individuals involved, I find it almost incomprehensible that an author would write a book defending looting and couch it in terms used mostly by socialist/communist social justice warriors.

The book is called “In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action” and features a crowbar on the cover. A closer look reveals it is pseudo-intellectual, down with the revolution clap-trap, apparently written by an angry transgendered man who now appears to present as a woman.


When I encounter a phrase like “cisheteropatriarchal racial capitalist society,” I am triggered and all I see are red flags.

Is the author’s name a pseudonym?

[OCS: It appears that the author is a transgendered individual (a man now behaving like a woman) and much of their history may reside under a former name.]

Is the author an academic with an advanced degree operating in an educational environment where artificial constructs are often assigned the weight of reality?

[OCS:  Unknown – but unlikely]

Is the author associated with a “studies” program whose basic premise is that America is bad, America needs to be punished, American need a radical transformation, and American needs to serve-up reparations for those whose ancestors may have been historically aggrieved?

[OCS:  Unknown – but unlikely]

Is the author associated with any racial, sexual, or political advocacy effort?

[OCS:  Unknown – but possible.]

Is the author down with the socialist or communist ideal of revolution, where a society’s governance, institutions, economy, and culture along with an individual’s inalienable rights and freedoms must be totally obliterated in order to bring about an impossible enlightened society governed by experts for the benefit of all of the people?

[OCS:  From their writings, it appears that the author is down with the revolution.]

What are the author’s motivations? Academic credit in a publish or perish academic environment? Peer recognition and plaudits? Lecture fees? Book sales? Media appearances. Or all of the above?

[OCS:  It appears that the author is a professional writer, which leaves the profit and recognition motives along with credit as a social justice warrior.]

To be fair to the author, here is the passage in full …

Looting is so unpopular not because it is an error or bad for the movement but because it is often a movement’s most radical tactic.

Looting attacks some of the core beliefs and structures of cisheteropatriarchal racial capitalist society, and so frightens and disturbs nearly everyone, even some of its participants.

After all, we have all been raised and trained to hold, follow, and reproduce those beliefs every day. Looting rejects the legitimacy of ownership rights and property, the moral injunction to work for a living, and the “justice” of law and order. Looting reveals all these for what they are: not natural facts, but social constructs benefiting a few at the expense of the many, upheld by ideology, economy, and state violence.

That looting is one of the most racially loaded, morally abhorred, and depoliticized concepts in modern society should come as no surprise. From its very first usages, the word has served to re-enforce the white supremacist juncture of property and race.

-- Vicky Osterweil, In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action

(ISBN: 781645036692

It doesn't take a major leap of faith to know that I have entered George Orwell's land of "newspeak" and "doublethink" or Alice in Wonderland’s topsy-turvy world…

Newspeak, where language is used to "deliberately obscure, disguise, distort, or reverse the meaning of words" And doublethink, the "process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to accept as true that which is clearly false or to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in contravention to one's own memories or sense of reality."

Or Alice in Wonderland's "topsy-turvy" world where fantasy reigns and the rules of reality disappear." A landscape where left is right, up is down, right is wrong, evil is good -- and the immoral suddenly becomes moral.

Whoever the author may be, they are intellectually dishonest, in some cases grossly inaccurate…

WHEN DARREN WILSON GUNNED DOWN MIKE BROWN FOR THE CRIME of being Black in the middle of the street, Wilson’s actions represented no great break with American history, no change in the nature of American policing. When the Ferguson Police Department left Brown’s body lying in the middle of the road for four hours, they practiced an anti-Black white terrorism as old as the country. But when Brown’s friends, family, and community rose up and fought back, when they rioted, looted, marched, occupied, and organized in the streets of Ferguson, they pulled us toward a definitive break with that history. The riots in Ferguson gave birth to a new era of militant resistance in America, the reemergence of the long movement for emancipation and Black liberation.”

The truth is far different. The Officer did not gun down Michael Brown for being black. That statement appears to be both untrue and libelous. Michael Brown was a criminal who had just perpetrated a strong-arm act at a local convenience store. He was confronted by an officer of the law and attacked the officer, trying to grab the officer’s weapon when he was shot the first time. Brown retreated, and for whatever twisted reason, attacked the officer again which resulted in the fatal shot. The officer was cleared of any wrongdoing by local, state, and federal authorities. The lie that Brown was shot while his hands were in the air was disproved by witness accounts and forensic evidence.

We can no longer let the police, that despicable occupying army, seem “natural,” nor let anyone paint resistance to the settler state as an enemy of peace. Their peace is the peace of the grave.”

Despicable occupying army? The truth is that the police, the overwhelming majority of whom are respectful of the law and willing to sacrifice their lives to protect citizens, is what stands between criminals and the thugs preying on the law-abiding members of the community.

When it comes to small business, family owned business or locally owned business, they are no more likely to provide worker protections. They are no more likely to have to provide good stuff for the community than big businesses.”

Even small, family-owned businesses are attacked without regard to the fact that they are vital to providing goods and services to the community. And to the extent their prices may be higher than major shopping outlets, one must consider economies of scale, buying power, and the increased costs of operating in a neighborhood that may have a higher proportion of criminal activity.

About the author…

It is hard to research the origins of someone who only exists on paper. According to her publisher, “Vicky Osterweil is a writer, editor, and agitator and a regular contributor to the New Inquiry. Her writing has also appeared in the Baffler, the Nation, Real Life, and Al Jazeera America. She lives in Philadelphia.” However, a little additional research tends to indicate that she is a transgender woman who describes herself as a ‘writer, editor, and agitator’ and whose Twitter handle is ‘Vicky_ACAB’ (All Cops Are Bastards). Her Tweets are locked.

Bottom line…

Of course, there is a simple way to solve the problems with large-scale looters and arsonists —shoot them on sight.  Spray them with indelible dye and pick them up as they attempt to penetrate a preset perimeter.

But the real problem is the progressive socialist democrats and their RINO cohorts, politicians and legislators who are “soft on crime,” lest they anger their base.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


After the counter-protest against Antifa and Black Lives Matter in Portland, Oregon, that left one counter-protester dead, I confess that I have little sympathy for the individual who voluntarily entered a known protest zone with armed belligerents…


Scenes of Trump supporters firing paint and pellet guns at protesters during a “Trump cruise rally” caravan through downtown Portland - a liberal bastion that has been the site of weeks of street demonstrations - raised the specter that the nation’s summer of unrest had entered a new phase in which the president’s backers are rallying to defend businesses and fight back against Black Lives Matter and other groups he has labeled “anarchists” and “terrorists.”

One man, thought to be a member of a pro-Trump group, was shot and killed Saturday night during the Portland unrest.

In tweeting a video of the caravan on the move, Trump called the participants “GREAT PATRIOTS!” The reaction marked a sharp contrast to his silence during a large and peaceful civil rights march on Friday in Washington that drew thousands to the National Mall, where some speakers denounced his leadership. <Source>

[OCS: Unless these armed people are in an organized state militia or sworn sheriff’s posse, they are either vigilantes or ill-informed idiots. This is far different from those protecting their own homes and businesses or are state-approved security guards. Consider that, even if you have the right to open carry, you are at a greater risk to be targeted for gun theft, injury, or death. And, if you do not have insurance to help pay for your defense and any collateral damage, you are putting your future at risk.

If you want to orchestrate a show of the colors or a show of force, organize like the military and assign areas of fire to outward-facing individuals watching the crowds and who should be prepared to respond instantly. Something that would be impractical and illegal in a civilian environment. ]

It is one thing to demonstrate peaceably in areas with a robust police presence and rapid medical response; it is something entirely different to demonstrate in downtown Fallujah, Iraq. Far different from the support the police demonstration in Thousand Oaks, California.


Why is it always about projection – attributing your behavior to your opponents… <Source>


Bottom line…

I suspect that, other than residents who may innocent bystanders, those in the protest area are not “social justice warriors,” but are individuals looking for entertainment, excitement, and for some, the opportunity to riot, loot, burn, and engage the opposition.

The strongest protest is not to virtue-signal your peers or attempt to be part of a historical “cultural thing,” but to cast your vote to protect your country, constitution, and civil society.

And, perhaps the wisest advice comes from Napoleon Bonaparte -- "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Every instance of rioting, burning, looting, and the destruction of public and private property produces more Trump supporters.

Take action … vote!


-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Can you trust the government’s medical “experts?”

Experts study their subject, continually narrowing their focus on individual aspects of their field as they grow their expertise. Over time they know more and more about less and less until they know everything about virtually nothing. That this hyper-specialized knowledge can be transferred to other areas, especially outside their narrow field of expertise, is highly doubtful.

Those experts who head institutions or individual departments within institutions become bureaucrats over time. Bureaucrats who are subject to outside forces to maintain their positions, advance to the next level of their career, to gain or avoid media attention, or to serve their self-interest agenda.

Those who operated within a bureaucracy controlled by politicians are those most likely to ignore data and the conditions on the ground as they struggle to maintain their position in a hostile political environment.

Which is why I wonder about Dr. Anthony Fauci, the physician/researcher who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 -- 36 years under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

Indeed, Dr. Fauci’s expertise does not extend to the economic, cultural, social ramifications of medical decisions driven by politics rather than objective science.

What I do not understand is this controversy over Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil), an anti-malarial drug used to treat several forms of malaria as well as lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis, and its use to ameliorate the effects of a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2 which manifests as COVID-19 ('CO’ stands for ‘corona,’ ‘VI’ for ‘virus,’ and ‘D’ for the disease.) Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is a less toxic derivative of chloroquine (Aralen). There exist decades of experience with these drugs in clinical settings, both in-patient and out-patient. Side-effects are well-known and manageable. Whether or not it should be prescribed is a matter for physicians and their patients, not politicians and bureaucrats.

I question why various governmental agencies are inserting themselves into what is a physician-patient consideration of the risks and benefits of using hydroxychloroquine as a preventative or treatment for COVID-19? Especially when that treatment is widely available at pennies-on-the-dollar while pharmaceutical companies are charging thousands of dollars for their treatment products? Is this a case of politics and profits dictating public policy over science?

Again, the drugs and their side-effects are well-studied and have been known for decades. In many cases, it is both cheap and effective.

Consider ...

Effect of Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin on the Corrected QT Interval in Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection



The novel SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) is responsible for the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Small studies have shown a potential benefit of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine±azithromycin for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019. Use of these medications alone, or in combination, can lead to a prolongation of the QT interval, possibly increasing the risk of Torsade de pointes and sudden cardiac death.


Two hundred one patients were treated for coronavirus disease 2019 with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine. Ten patients (5.0%) received chloroquine, 191 (95.0%) received hydroxychloroquine, and 119 (59.2%) also received azithromycin. The primary outcome of torsade de pointes was not observed in the entire population. Baseline corrected QT interval intervals did not differ between patients treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (monotherapy group) versus those treated with combination group (chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin; 440.6±24.9 versus 439.9±24.7 ms, P=0.834). The maximum corrected QT interval during treatment was significantly longer in the combination group versus the monotherapy group (470.4±45.0 ms versus 453.3±37.0 ms, P=0.004). Seven patients (3.5%) required discontinuation of these medications due to corrected QT interval prolongation. No arrhythmogenic deaths were reported. ‘


In the largest reported cohort of coronavirus disease 2019 patients to date treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine±azithromycin, no instances of Torsade de pointes, or arrhythmogenic death were reported. Although use of these medications resulted in QT prolongation, clinicians seldomly needed to discontinue therapy. Further study of the need for QT interval monitoring is needed before final recommendations can be made.

Saleh, M., Gabriels, J., Chang, D., Soo Kim, B., Mansoor, A., Mahmood, E., Makker, P., Ismail, H., Goldner, B., Willner, J., Beldner, S., Mitra, R., John, R., Chinitz, J., Skipitaris, N., Mountantonakis, S., & Epstein, L. M. (2020). Effect of Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin on the Corrected QT Interval in Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology, 13(6), e008662. <Source>

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread



Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.

[OCS: Is this literally true today?]


We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.


Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

[OCS: Can this study be extended? Perhaps yes, perhaps no?]

Vincent, M. J., Bergeron, E., Benjannet, S., Erickson, B. R., Rollin, P. E., Ksiazek, T. G., Seidah, N. G., & Nichol, S. T. (2005). Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. Virology journal, 2, 69. <Source>

There are thousands of relevant studies, so many that no practicing physician has the time and energy to read, understand, and consider them all. It should be the duty of government panels to absorb this material and produce non-binding guidelines with the exception of instances when the drugs cause substantial and universal harm. And, in those cases, suitable warnings should be provided.

The science is growing day-by-day, now we need a neutral forum without political participants…

I am not saying that any of the studies offer conclusive proof of Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness on the virus that causes COVID-19. What I am saying is to allow physicians and researchers, many of them as well-credentialed and experienced as Dr. Fauci, have their say in the scientific arena of debatable ideas and devoid of political consequences. 

What I am saying is that the United Nations World Health Organization, the NIH, the CDC, etc. are all politically-driven entities, sometimes announcing helpful scientific advancements or warnings – and sometimes not. As we have seen in the past, these organizations can be affected by politics and lobbying by big pharma. 

Do the bureaucrats sometimes get is wrong? (The AIDS/Bactrim Controversy)

Dr. Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health. Dr. Risch has authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications.

RISCH: So the FDA is a very strange organization that has a history of not making science based rational based decisions about its approvals.

This was started, and most noticeably in 1987, when people with AIDS in New York City were dying of what is called pneumocystis pneumonia, PCP, and the clinical experience then had been amassed. A large number of cases who were prevented from dying by use of the antibiotic, Bactrim. This is even then was a generic medication and cheap.

And activists obtained a meeting with Dr. Fauci and 15 of his selected scientists at FDA, at NIH and asked Dr. Fauci just to make guidelines to physicians that they consider using Bactrim to treat preventively AIDS people so that they wouldn’t die of this pneumonia. Dr. Fauci refused.

He said, I want randomized, controlled, blinded, controlled trial evidence. That’s my gold standard. That or nothing.  The activists left. The NIH did not fund any randomized trials. They raised money themselves from their own AIDS patients to collect the data to do a randomized trial.

It took them two years. They came back to Dr. Fauci.

During those two years, the FDA approved AZT as a treatment for AIDS, AZT works, but not completely. It needs other medications as well. And during the two years that it took them to get this data to come back to Dr. Fauci to support using Bactrim, 17,000 people with AIDS died because of Dr. Fauci’s insistence on not allowing even a statement supporting consideration of the use.

This has gone on before. Now, we have Dr. Fauci denying that any evidence exists of benefit, and that’s pervaded the FDA. The FDA has relied on Dr. Fauci and his NIH advisory groups to make a statement saying that there is no benefit of using hydroxychloroquine in outpatients.

And this is counter to the facts of the case. The evidence is overwhelming.

The FDA has also said that there is the harm of using these medications in outpatients overweighs the benefit; and in fact, they’ve said this with no information, no evidence whatsoever of any harm in outpatient use, and this is provable both by the fact that the FDA’s webpage says as a warning against outpatient use, but says it relies on inpatient hospital data, which means they don’t have any outpatient data.

As well as the fact that 90 percent of the cases of COVID this year have occurred since the time that the FDA restricted usage to inpatients only. So the FDA knows that it has no data for outpatients and no data on harm and yet, it denied the Henry Ford petition for outpatient usage.

Dr. Fauci and the FDA are doing the same thing that was done in 1987 and that’s led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans who could have been saved by usage of this drug. <Source>

Pneumocystis pneumonia can be prevented. Why did it take so long for well known preventative measures to be introduced in AIDS? <Source>

“Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and thus ultimate head of the ACTG (AIDS Clinical Trials Group), went as far as telling activists attending a 1987 meeting that there was no data to suggest PCP prophylaxis was beneficial and that it may, in fact, be dangerous.” Some years prior to 1987, Michael Callen, an AIDS patient advocate, received a similar response from Dr. Fauci, discouraging attempts to prevent PCP in people with AIDS on the grounds that there had been no controlled studies on the efficacy and safety of this intervention in this particular group of patients. Yet this same leadership did not feel there was any urgency to remove this obstacle by promptly conducting the appropriate trials.

[OCS: Treatment with Bactrim was cheap, appeared to be effective, and yet was rejected in favor of other more expensive treatment modalities.]

Bottom line...

I am in the highest risk category, having multiple co-morbidities and a heart issue that can result in deadly arrhythmias. I believe in my team of world-class physicians -- not some bureaucrat, not some pharmacy benefits manager or druggist, and certainly not a socialist political clown-like, my governor, Gavin Newsom.

Anyone who watches television, listens to the radio, or reads the advertising in print publications is well aware of the numerous side effects (including death) of drugs that are being hyped to help you live a better life. Again, any drug use should be a question that should be asked of the physician who knows you and your conditions best – not some far-off “expert” or political hack.

We are so screwed.
-- steve 

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell