Previous month:
February 2021
Next month:
April 2021

WHERE ARE THE "RULES FOR REPUBLICANS?"

GOP-ELEPHANT

After decades of implementation by progressive socialist democrats, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that Saul Alinsky’s thoughts on community organizing work and his  “Rules for Radicals” have been successfully applied to defeat Republicans.

So, I ask you, where are the Rules for Republicans?

Stand for what the people want – Abandon the traditional party ideology and promote what the voters want. Triangulate, grab your opponent’s issues, especially if they resonate with the voters, and make them yours. Ignore issues that distract and detract from these core issues. Do not let the Democrats drag the GOP down the traditional rabbit holes and diffuse the message. The goal is to win elections and change the system, not lose and bask in your righteousness. Never stop pointing out that the problem is “government” and the unelected bureaucrats. As I see it, the three top concerns are immigration, the economy, and healthcare. Always have a replacement program ready to implement for anything you attack.

No shame – when Republicans face wrongdoing, or even the suspicion of wrongdoing by fellow Republicans, they are quick to pile on and condemn their colleagues. Especially in matters of moral turpitude involving so-called family values. Why do GOP members embrace and practice “group responsibility" and group shame when acts are clearly perpetrated by an individual or an organization with no connection other than the same party of the perpetrators? It seems to me that the GOP, the party that has feted individualism over collectivism, would not embrace the concept of collective shame. Use the broken record technique by repeating the same thing repeatedly to every comment or as an answer to everything question.

Create contrasts, use disparaging nicknames, create foils – Always highlight the differences between the Democrats and the GOP. Link everything bad in the previous years to Biden-Obama or Biden’s time in Congress. Shut down talk about “Whataboutism” by saying that “this is the history the Democrats have not erased yet.” Or, “it seems we haven’t learned from the past?” Or ask, “are you trying to erase history?”

No respect for the media – why do Republicans overlook decades of historical media presence and view the mainstream media as a benign force in America or that most media folks report honestly? We are clearly living in an age of corporate-directed journalism if “journalism” is still a thing, where major corporations are controlling, censoring, and conforming the news to a political narrative for commercial purposes or to advance the political interests of their owners and executives. The wall between journalism and commentary has been breached, and, like Humpty Dumpty falling off the wall, the message of the GOP is little more than a broken, unfixable scrambled egg. The GOP should use, and if necessary, abuse the mainstream media – pushing the meme of seeking “real” news from GOP-friendly alternative sources. The GOP should not be afraid to generate sensational and controversial stories to capture the news cycle as no media outlet wants other media outlets capitalizing on sensationalism.

Always on – political action does not begin and start with specific elections or campaign events. The Democrats maintain strong national, state, and local operations that recruit, fundraise and peddle influence on a 24/7 year-round basis. Individual campaigns draw assistance and provide supplemental support to the party. The Democrats engage in long-term indoctrination, not short-term campaign messaging. Whereas the Republicans ramp-up political efforts four to six months before an election – believing that ordinary people do not engage with the political process until the last minute. Ignoring the fact that voters have been well-indoctrinated and conditioned by the Democrats by that time. Always be on the offensive. Quit playing defense and attack, attack, attack. Pretend you are John Wayne with large political cojones.

Grassroots – why do Republicans engage in astroturfing, using artificial proxies like campaign appearances for actual grassroots organizing. Where are the neighborhood coffees? While it is true that candidates who prioritize their time pandering to large donors and special interests can raise large amounts of money quickly, this does not always result in committed individuals willing to gather and shepherd voters at election time. 

No fear – It appears, at least to me, that members of the GOP are afraid to use raw, naked political power to advance their agenda. The GOP leadership should deny good office space, funding, and other perks and privileges to those who oppose the party’s agenda. Forget always asking, "not if something can be done, but should it be done." If it helps but has questionable optics, do it. This is analogous to avoiding bringing a knife to a gunfight. Replace opposition bureaucrats as soon as possible to counter what the Democrats call “The Resistance.”

Fight dirty – if the opposition appears to adopt effective voting methods, develop similar systems and procedures. In the days of ballot harvesting, use voter walk lists to collect ballots from known supporters, ignoring those who appear allied with the opposition party. The goal is not to harvest “all votes” or votes from independents who may switch but to gather a solid and overwhelming turnout by the base. Consistently blame the opposition for any bad behavior that they discover.

Vet candidates thoroughly – Opposition research is a fact of life. Accept the up-front costs of investigating candidates before investing in their political futures. That includes nominees that can embarrass the party at a critical juncture. We are no longer living in a MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, where politicians of both parties agree not to “out” fellow politicians of either party. We should re-vet all of the GOP congress members and have a backup plan--opposition research is real and we must know the GOP's vulnerabilities. 

Retaliate -- no matter how factually innocent an individual might be, or having been cleared after an investigation, the damage has been done in the court of public opinion. Time to mount campaigns, including lawsuits, against false accusers.

Scoop: Matt Gaetz eyes early retirement to take job at Newsmax

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) has privately told confidants he's seriously considering not seeking re-election and possibly leaving Congress early for a job at Newsmax, three sources with direct knowledge of the talks tell Axios.

Why it matters: Gaetz is a provocative figure on the right who's attracted attention by being a fierce defender of former President Trump. The Republican also represents a politically potent district on the Florida panhandle.

What we’re hearing: Gaetz has told some of his allies he’s interested in becoming a media personality, and floated taking a role at Newsmax. One of the sources said Gaetz has had early conversations with the network about what a position could look like. <Source>

Matt Gaetz says he's under federal investigation for sexual misconduct

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), one of the nation's rising-star conservative firebrands, told Axios he is under federal investigation for sexual activity with women, and fears being criminally charged.

What he's saying: "The allegations against me are as searing as they are false," Gaetz said in a 13-minute phone interview with Axios. "I believe that there are people at the Department of Justice who are trying to criminalize my sexual conduct, you know when I was a single guy."

Axios reported earlier Tuesday that Gaetz has privately told confidants he's seriously considering not seeking re-election, and possibly leaving Congress early for a job at Newsmax.

The big picture: Gaetz, 38, said the specifics of the allegations are "unclear," and he said he's been told "very little." But the New York Times reported late Tuesday afternoon that the Justice Department is investigating Gaetz "over whether he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old and paid for her to travel with him."

"The allegations of sexual misconduct against me are false," Gaetz told Axios. "They are rooted in an extortion effort against my family for $25 million … in exchange for making this case go away."

Gaetz sent Axios screenshots of text messages, emails and documents outlining the alleged extortion scheme, which he claimed was being run by a former DOJ employee. The Justice Department declined to comment. <Source>

Matt Gaetz Accuses Former DOJ Official of Extorting Him with Underage Sex Allegation

Representative Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.) accused a former Department of Justice official of using a concocted underage sex investigation to blackmail him and his family to the tune of $25 million, during a Tuesday night appearance on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Gaetz identified the alleged extortionist as David McGee, a former Florida DOJ official who now works for the law firm Beggs & Lane, hours after The New York Times reported that he was being investigated by federal authorities for allegedly conducting a sexual relationship with a minor.

McGee did not immediately respond to a request for comment. <Source>

Cull the herd– eliminate the weaklings, those who jump the Democrat line and become Republicans to win elections, and those who consistently vote with the opposition. 

Add your own rules and circulate them for discussion – forget the orthodoxy and static rules. Continue to pursue a dynamic attack.

Bottom line…

NO MATTER HOW MUCH REAL OR PERCEIVED POWER YOU MAY HAVE, IT IS WORTHLESS IF YOU ARE AFRAID TO USE IT. AND THE GOP, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF REAGAN AND TRUMP, LACK THE COJONES TO USE IT.

We are so screwed, and unless we take action now, all we have lived and worked for will be redistributed to other individuals and countries. If Pakistan can afford to design, develop, and maintain nuclear weapons, they certainly can afford their own gender studies program.

-- 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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



SCREWED: INTERNET DOWN?

IoIf you are reading this on your normal internet connection, I assume all is well.

Not so here, where my ISP (Internet Service Provider) has informed me that our internet outage is “projected” to be resolved by “approximately” 7:00 p.m. today — after an outage started the morning of Easter Sunday and the first day of Passover.

I wonder if that’s a sign to reduce my usage? Also, wondering how they managed to “estimate” a time before knowing what was wrong— or is it something that would embarrass them?

Who are you going to call?

Certainly not your customer service representative who reads the disconcerting news off a yellow sticky pasted to the top bezel of their screen.

So since everything appears to be fine, you might want to take a few moments to ponder an uncertain future...

How many functions in your home or office are “mission-critical” “must-have” functions?

Does your healthcare, home security system, emergency news source, or infrastructure controls (power, heating, cooling, lighting, water, appliances, etc.) depend on internet access for functionality?

Does your income, employment, banking, and brokerage depend on internet access?

Do you consider your entertainment and gaming devices, or will you be content with a book, board games, or the lost art of conversation?

Are there workarounds?

Is your system protected by a VPN, and is your anti-malware software up-to-date, so you can safely use a public internet hotspot offered by your ISP or a friendly company such as MacDonald’s, an Internet cafe, or a local business?

Can you log-on (with permission) to your neighbor’s wifi network, assuming they have a different ISP or the outage is not area-wide and affecting multiple carriers?

Can you use your smartphone as a mobile “hotspot,” and will your data plan allow this luxury without selling one of your children?

If the outage is power-related, do you have an uninterruptible power source such as a generator, battery pack, or solar array? Or enough gas in your vehicle to move toward the light?

And if you use your smartphone as a work-around, do you have your ophthalmologist and carpal tunnel expert on speed dial?

Bottom line...

There are many things worse than an internet outage but look on the bright side — no intrusive craziness from politicians and their respective mainstream media outlets. And a chance to reconnect with loved ones.

And, of course, since your security system may be compromised, consider the most effective safety tool for your situation. I recommend an AR-15 or equivalent .45 caliber Model 1911 Colt with night sights.

Be well and be safe.

— 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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



BUILDING A BETTER BRAND OF SELF-HELP BULLSHIT?

Pardon me, but I have always been wary of venture capital-fueled startups laden with jargon-filled mission statements and descriptions of purpose. More so when the board appears to recruit former high-ranking government officials or media-worthy celebrities with non-traditional titles. 

So what am I to think when I see that The Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, has joined the San Francisco, California-based start-up BetterUp  as their “Chief Impact Officer?” Especially when the company has reportedly attracted $125 million in Series D venture capital? Theoretically valuing the company over $173 billion – an outrageous value based on little more than investor’s equity money.

Is the company just another self-help enterprise, selling seminars, expensive coaching programs, online training apps,  books, audio-visual materials to individuals and organizations? A high-tech version of the venerable Franklin Covey company that transformed a personal planner into a multi-million-dollar enterprise that describes itself as a “provider of leadership, individual effectiveness, and business execution training and assessment services for organizations and individuals.”

Here is how the company describes itself…

With an impressive customer list of high-profile branded companies, the various press releases and case studies can be used to form a company portrait.

AB InBev – “BetterUp, the market leader and pioneer of mobile, personalized coaching for professionals, announced today that it has partnered with AB InBev to offer a new global pilot program to drive diversity, foster an inclusive work environment, and provide coaching and support in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis.

The first 150 participants include women in 18 countries at various careers levels who were nominated by their managers. Participants now have unlimited access to BetterUp’s coaching platform, which includes 1:1, personalized coaching, access to specialists providing support on timely topics such as effectively managing remote work, stress management, and work/life balance for working parents with children at home. Each participant’s coaching journey will be tailored according to individual preferences and learning styles, with the aim of creating a climate of trust, building positive relationships, and helping employees navigate the uncertainty and difficult circumstances associated with the current health pandemic.”

Prince Harry, the Duke of Success?

duke

What does a Chief Impact Officer do? Beats me. From what I can intuit, the “other CIO” attracts additional investors, schmoozes existing investors, represents the company at high-level events, and generally provides “differentiating” media attention and panache to the enterprise. For certain, not a day-to-day nuts-and-bolts job, but a “big picture” one that allows the “officer” plenty of time to pursue other opportunities.

To backstop Prince Harry, the company appears to have an impressive leadership team, 28 individuals who appear to fit the Silicon Valley mold of hard-chargers.

From the company’s website…

From Alexi Robichaux, CEO of BetterUp

Everyone wants to live a meaningful life. But, there are often barriers — both external and internal — that can limit our ability to do that on our own. That’s why we started BetterUp. We wanted to make a positive impact in the world by empowering millions of people to live their lives with greater clarity, purpose, and passion.

We’re standing at a once-in-a-lifetime crossroad of opportunity as a society. We have the economic, technological, and scientific means to positively impact human potential at scale. But to achieve this, we must “reframe” how we think about human flourishing (the potential we all have), peak performance, and mental fitness. They are not separate pursuits. They are part of one interconnected journey of growth.

To meet this opportunity, it is with great pleasure and excitement that we welcome our first Chief Impact Officer: Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex. We are energized by his model of inspiration and impact through action. As a true citizen of the world, he has dedicated his life’s work to bringing attention to the diverse needs of people everywhere and advocating for mental health initiatives: from founding the Invictus Games, a platform for service personnel to use sport as part of their psychological and physical rehabilitation, to launching Sentebale, which supports the mental health and wellbeing of young people affected by HIV in Lesotho and Botswana.

As a member of the BetterUp executive team, Prince Harry will expand on the work he’s been doing for years, as he educates and inspires our community and champions the importance of focusing on preventative mental fitness and human potential worldwide. 

From Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex, Chief Impact Officer of BetterUp

First of all, I am really excited to be joining the BetterUp team and community! Thanks for having me.

I firmly believe that focusing on and prioritising our mental fitness unlocks potential and opportunity that we never knew we had inside of us. As the Royal Marine Commandos say, ‘It’s a state of mind.’ We all have it in us.

Being attuned with your mind, and having a support structure around you, are critical to finding your own version of peak performance.

What I’ve learned in my own life is the power of transforming pain into purpose.

During my decade in the military, I learned that we don’t just need to build physical resilience, but also mental resilience. And in the years since, my understanding of what resilience means — and how we can build it — has been shaped by the thousands of people and experts I’ve been fortunate to meet and learn from. 

As BetterUp’s first Chief Impact Officer, my goal is to lift up critical dialogues around mental health, build supportive and compassionate communities, and foster an environment for honest and vulnerable conversations. And my hope is to help people develop their inner strength, resilience, and confidence.

In this new role, I’ll be focused on four key areas:

  • Driving advocacy and awareness for mental fitness. We can and will elevate the global conversation around our mental health. What we’re doing is about equipping people to thrive. Whether you’re performing at the highest level, or want to get to the next level, or just want to get started, it’s all about having the specialised resources, preparation, and human connection to back you up — whatever the challenge. 
  • Guiding BetterUp’s social mission and impact to bring the science of peak performance and human potential into the hands of people worldwide.
  • Influencing the vision of BetterUp’s platform, community, and member experience. I’m excited to help shape their already extensive library with content and resources on mental fitness and to share new stories and voices. To start, I’ve invited BetterUp to work with 'Peak State: Mental Fitness’, a platform I helped establish which provides practical online tools to enhance our mental fitness.
  • Expanding BetterUp’s global community of thought leadership, coaches, customers, and members through outreach and strategic planning.

Self-optimisation is not about fixing something that’s broken. It’s about becoming the best version of ourselves, with whatever life throws at us — someone who is ready for the next challenge and can meet setbacks with courage, confidence, and self-awareness.

This is what BetterUp is making possible, and I look forward to being on this journey with you.

Join the community to get access to insights, advice, and tools on reaching your true potential, and be the first to learn about new content and programmes on mental fitness and resilience that I’ll be developing. <To read the full statement in context - Source>

Do coaching programs generally work?

Like everything else in life, different individuals may experience different results. Here are few ideas to start your self-coaching program.

(1)  Everything is dependent on your mindset and expectations. Expect grief and pressure, get grief and pressure. Learn how to reframe negative events as learning opportunities.

(2)  Use productive habits and systems consistently for long-term success as goals will shift over time.

(3)  Scheduling, to-do lists, and productivity aids are worthless if you do not understand the difference between effectiveness and efficiency. Efficiency is being the best rower on the river, able to go farther with less energy expenditure. Effectiveness is rowing on the right river to your destination.

(4)  The most powerful tool in your toolbox is the ability to say “No” with grace and sincerity that leaves no bad feelings. When faced with competing demands from a supervisor, ask them to prioritize the tasks, provide more time, or provide more assistance. Whatever the outcome, they have set the tone and the path. For self-starters who do not want to ask higher-level management, select the project with the highest return on your investment in time, energy, cost, and resources. The key to this approach is to document your reasoning, progress, and inform your superior (if any) of your choices.

(5)  Learn to delegate. For those who fear screw-ups or believe that they can do it better and faster, you are the bottleneck and amplifying your own stress levels.

(6)  Learn to manage meetings with agendas, time limits, delegation, responsibility, and progress reporting intervals.

(7)  If you want to use professional-level coaching, let someone else pay for the program and demand specific performance to keep it from being just another time-waster.

However, the best stress reducer that organizational coaches rarely talk about is self-management. Developing peace of mind by having an updated in-demand marketable skillset, multiple independent streams of income, a solid emergency fund, spending less than you earn, minimizing useless clutter or status fads, having the mobility to move toward better opportunities, and the reciprocal love of someone to share it all with. All giving you the staying power to say “no” or walk away without undue stress. In short: FU money and being able to live as you wish.

Bottom line…

I am ambivalent about the latest management fads and corporate coaching programs. Especially those used by large organizations as a relatively easy and inexpensive way to enhance feelings of  “we care” for stressed employees operating in a high-stress environment. Also, an antidote to HR claims involving work performance, bad behavior, and diversity training requirements.

I think my favorite management model cartoon by New Zealand analytical, environmental chemist, and cartoonist Dr. Nicholas D. Kim says it all… nz171

Corporate loyalty is dead. Good people who have done nothing wrong are routinely fired for nothing other than executives wanting to “make their numbers.” Feather your own nest.

Be well and be safe.

-- 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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



OCS WISHES YOU AND YOURS A HAPPY PASSOVER -- HAPPY EASTER

holiday

Be well, be safe, be American.

-- 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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



DOMESTIC VIOLENT EXTREMISTS: WHAT'S MISSING

When are government officials and bureaucrats going to be held accountable for their un-Constitutional or illegal actions? 

Considering the progressive socialist democrat's loosey-goosey definition of violence  (e.g., "silence is violence") -- I suggest that any action that adversely affects a major portion of the country be deemed to be violent extremism. 

The overly-broad definitions contained within the document “Domestic Violent Extremism Poses Heightened Threat in 2021” published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence should scare civil libertarians as it could serve as the basis for confusing legitimate protest under the Constitution’s First Amendment with unlawful conduct, thus conveying additional powers to an authoritarian or tyrannical government. In fact, it may be a direct nullification of the “free state” intent of the Constitution’s Second Amendment. As well as allowing certain intelligence agencies to spy on American citizens, where such domestic activities were previously prohibited.

ve

What is missing…

Considering the demonstrable abuse of governmental authority over the past two decades by White House-directed intelligence and law enforcement agencies, perhaps we should add another category to the list.

WORKPRO-GOVERNMENT/PRO-AUTHORITY
        EXTREMISTS

PGE's with ideological agendas derived from pro-government or pro-authority sentiment who take overt steps to abuse the power of their position, including the misuse of tools normally used for intelligence activities, law enforcement, or military operations against domestically situated individuals they perceive to be harmful to their ideological agenda. 

Bottom line…

It appears that the Harris-Biden Administration is being driven by unseen forces wanting to radically transform the United States in a manner that is not only un-American but traitorous as it reduces the safety and security of the United States and its ability to act against our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

In fact, after watching President Biden’s stage-managed press conference, if you could call it that, I am, for the first time in my life, wondering who is the Commander-in-Chief. And, if not Biden, is it a President Harris who might be prone to giggling when she is informed that the United States has come under attack somewhere in the world.

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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



CALIFORNIANS: IF YOU NEED ANOTHER REASON TO RECALL GAVIN NEWSOM ...

It is bad enough Californians were locked down with no valid scientific rationale;

it is bad that many of California’s small businesses were bankrupted with the Governor’s essential/non-essential edicts;

it is bad that the Governor is welcoming illegal aliens into the state without demanding the Biden Administration conduct identity checks and medical screens;

it is bad enough that the state is pouring millions of taxpayer’s dollars and free access to our social safety nets to illegal arrivals;

it is bad we have staggering high tax rates and near $5/gallon gasoline 

– but the icing on the cake comes with Newsolini’s appointment of Rob Bonta to be California’s Attorney General.

For those with short memories, Oakland Democrat Rob Bonta is the un-American asswipe that introduced  Assembly Bill A.B. 22, a bill to end the ban preventing Communist Party members from working in California's state government.

The pro-communist bill…

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 22 (Bonta)
As Amended April 17, 2017

SUMMARY:’

Makes changes to existing law regarding any public employee who advocates or is knowingly a member of a subversive organization that advocates the overthrow of the federal, or any state government by force or violence. Specifically, this bill:

1) Removes legislative findings in existing law related to ideological perceptions associated with communism, the communist movement, and the Communist Party.

2) Removes provisions in existing law related to public employees who are, or were members of the Communist Party, and instead makes the provisions applicable to any organization that advocates the forceful or violent overthrow of the federal or any state government.

The modification of provisions regarding dismissal of any public employee for such activity related to the Communist Party also are made applicable to any organization engaged in subversive activities.

3) Clarifies that provisions added by SB 97 (Tenney), Chapter 1418 of the Statutes of 1947 are not applicable to school district employees, and specifies legislative intent that the Education Code applies to those employees.

EXISTING LAW:

1) Provides for the dismissal of any public employee who advocates, or is knowingly a member of the Communist Party, at which time of the employee's membership, the employee knows advocates the overthrow of the federal or any state government by force or violence.

2) Requires a public employee who is subpoenaed or ordered by the government body of the state or local agency in which he or she is employed, including its subcommittees, a committee of the United States Congress, State Legislature, including its committees or subcommittees, to answer questions under oath regarding his or her personal activity, knowledge or membership in the Communist Party at any time since October 3, 1945, including advocacy of the support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities between those governments.

3) Provides for suspension and dismissal from employment if there is a finding of guilt of insubordination and violation of existing law, if the employee fails or refuses to appear and answer as to these matters under oath.

<Source>

Bonta claimed that the prohibition of communists in government violated the Constitution’s First Amendment, namely the right for communists to freely associate with their comrades already in the government. He also claimed that the bill would require due process to prove an individual’s conduct was threatening to the United States.

All you need to know about Rob Bonta are his progressive socialist credentials…

“The son of civil rights activists, Mr. Bonta, 48, was born in the Philippines and grew up in the Central Valley, where his parents, Cynthia and Warren Bonta, helped organize farmworkers alongside Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta. The family eventually moved to the Sacramento area.”

“Mr. Bonta is a graduate of Yale University, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in history and his law degree. He and his wife, Mia Bonta, who is president of the Alameda Unified School District board, met there.”  Bonta attended University of Oxford for one year studying politics, philosophy, and economics.

“As a State Assembly member, Mr. Bonta fought to end cash bail and cure the conflict of interest that occurs when elected prosecutors receive financial and political support from law enforcement unions,” the Prosecutors Alliance of California said in a statement. “He is a leader that has dedicated his career to protecting and uplifting vulnerable communities.”

[OCS: I wonder how he feels about the conflict of interest that occurs when politicians receive political and financial support from public employee unions?]

“The group of “reform-minded” prosecutors was formed last year and includes George Gascón, Los Angeles’s district attorney, whose election last year was a major victory for progressive activists.” <Source>

Bottom line…

Bonta is a perfect example of our enemies using our Constitution against us. And another reason to recall Gavin Newsolini.

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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



FREE SPEECH: SORRY HARRY'S, I CANCELED YOU!

As a freedom-loving constitutional conservative, I have the right to vote with my feet, money, and the right to flip the on-off switch like any other individual. Therefore, I have the right to push back against those idiots who believe it is necessary to do reputational damage to a commercial enterprise to virtue-signal your wokeness. If the company felt so strongly about the content on Michael Knowles’ show, they could have and should have just stopped advertising.

What Harry’s managed to do with their response to a Twitter user is alienate some portion of the conservative audience with their actions and bring even greater attention to Michael Knowles, his show, and his Daily Wire Platform. The boomerang effect in action.

In what world does it pay to publicly respond to a single tweet from someone with 15 followers and alienate a large number of loyal customers and prospects by withdrawing sponsorship of a popular show?

kt

Normally, I would have let the matter slide because opinions are like assholes; everyone has one. And, a company is free to do what they will with their advertising dollars. But I received another pitch from Harry’s in the snail mail and considered the reputational damage their oh-so-woke virtue-signaling may have caused. Especially from someone who is perpetually outraged and who may be telling the world that even discussing a controversial subject is somehow vile because they say it is.

harry-letter.jpg

From Michael Knowles…

If the video is missing, it can be found here.

 

Bottom line…

Go woke, alienate a portion of your audience, go broke.

-- 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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



MILITARY: WE NEED MARKSMANSHIP NOT MARXISM

mil

One of the most destructive forces known to man is Marxism, the ideology of hatred that exploits identity politics, race, in particular, to gain or maintain political power.

So why do most Americans treat Marxism as a benign entity that falsely promises to perfect man, save the environment, and form a more equal, equitable society? The answer is both simple and obvious: indoctrination.

Over the past decades, the Marxists have taken over education, communication and have thoroughly infiltrated most government and non-government institutions. What would seem radical to older generations, especially those who have fought against totalitarian regimes, is now accepted as normal and customary by younger generations.

It doesn’t matter what you call it; Critical Race Theory is Marxism…

Critical race theory starts from the viewpoint that society's institutions are inherently racist and that race is a social construct of the white ruling class which allows them to pursue their political and economic agenda at the expense of people of color; ignoring a fundamental truth that color is an inherent function of biological diversity.

If one were to honestly compare the so-called critical race theory with Marxism, you would find they are similar in nature. Both creating identity-based victims to be artificially manipulated to prevent challenges to the current political system and capitalist ideology.

Of course, the proponents of critical race theory cannot explain why socialist systems in Communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and elsewhere where people of color dominate the society that is a failure.

We are now witnessing the subversion of the last bastion of non-political society, the United States Military. 

Navy Creates ‘Task Force One Navy’ to Address Implicit Bias, Systemic Racism in the Ranks

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday announced the creation of Task Force One Navy in a video released June 25. According to the group’s charter, the 20-member task force is to “analyze and evaluate issues in our society and military that detract from Navy readiness, such as racism, sexism and other structural and interpersonal biases.”

The team is to develop concrete approaches to bring about change within the service, according to its directions.

The Navy initiative follows the growing national conversation on implicit and systemic racism in the wake of the killings of several black citizens across the country, including Ahmaud Arbery, 25, shot while jogging in Glynn County, Georgia; Breonna Taylor, 26, killed by police while she slept in her apartment; and George Floyd, 46, who died at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer May 25.

[OCS: None of the above acts were committed by active duty military members, they were not committed on military reservations, and they do not involve the military in any way.]

The task force, according to Gilday, will “leverage outreach focus groups from both within and outside the Navy representing diversity of race, ethnicity, gender, age, and rank to ensure a diversity of experience and perspectives.” <Source>

TF One Navy will leverage outreach focus groups from within and outside the Navy representing diversity of race, ethnicity, gender, age, and rank to ensure a diversity of experience and perspectives and that the best and most informed decisions are made. Using the feedback and responses from these engagements, we will standardize actionable approaches with defined goals guided by timelines and desired metrics. Evaluation of progress regarding status and processes will be conducted in a consistent manner.

Introducing un-American Critical Race Theory into the military…

Admiral Michael Gilday, the 32nd Chief of Naval Operations, has included openly anti-American, pro-Marxist, and racist books on the Chief of Naval Operations Professional Reading Program (CNO-PRP). The program, "Read to be Ready," organizes reading materials into four key areas: Readiness, Capabilities, Capacity, and Sailors. None of which are based on racial identities.

But it hard to fathom how books like Ibram X. Kendi’s “How to be an Antiracist,” Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow,” and Jason Pierceson’s “Sexual Minorities and Politics” further the Navy's mission of supporting and defending our country and the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Especially when such books reinforce the idea that America is engaged in an identity war of oppressors and the oppressed. Ask yourself, are you willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect a racist nation ruled by oppressors who are openly antagonistic to your fellow soldiers of color?

Stand down and standby for progressive indoctrination?

Pentagon, stumped by extremism in ranks, orders stand-down in next 60 days

The U.S. military on Wednesday acknowledged it was unsure about how to address white nationalism and other extremism in its ranks, and announced plans for military-wide stand-downs pausing regular activity at some point in the next 60 days to tackle the issue.

The decision to a hold a stand-down was made by Lloyd Austin, who made history by becoming the military’s first Black defense secretary after a long career rising in the ranks of the Army. In his confirmation hearing, Austin underscored the need to rid the military of “racists and extremists.” <Source>

Funny how those extremist groups are always on the right, including white supremacists, neo-Nazis, militias, and never extremist groups on the left like Antifa and Black Lives Matter, both of whose members are currently rampaging across the United States. And nary a word about the paramilitary black separationists in Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. Or minority gangs that practice domestic terrorism.

 Here is a look at the public version of the training materials…

The Department of Defense released the stand-down training materials to address extremism as one of the initial steps in support of the memo directing commanding officers and supervisors at all levels to conduct a one-day "stand-down". The training materials provide services and components information on training and facilitated discussions to address the issues of extremist ideology within the ranks. The training material can be found here.

Suggested Talking Points

• On February 5, 2021, the Secretary of Defense directed unit commanders and supervisors at all levels to conduct a leadership “stand down” within 60 days to address the issues of extremist ideology in our ranks.
• As you heard in the Secretary’s video remarks, extremist ideologies, particularly those that undermine the oath we each took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, have no place within the Department of Defense.
• Actively espousing ideologies that encourage discrimination, hate, and harassment against others will not be tolerated within our (unit/command/etc.). I expect the core principles of dignity and mutual respect to guide the actions of the personnel in this unit/organization at all times, to include our conversations here today.
• The vast majority of the men and women in the United States military and those who serve the Department of Defense as civilian employees perform their duties and responsibilities with integrity, and do not support racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists, including white supremacists, and other domestic terrorists such as anti-government violent extremists. However, recent events have shown that we must be ever vigilant in our efforts to identify and combat such ideology within the ranks and organizations.

It looks benign and common sense until you read this account…

Biden Admin Halts Navy Operations, Orders Sailors to Undergo 'Chilling' Stand-Down Training

But that’s not actually what the training says. The training we received this month was rushed through in the wake of the Washington, D.C., riot. The course, which was given in a PowerPoint deck, included a slide defining “extremism.” One would expect a broad, catch-all phrase that makes it clear that any radical activity undermining our nation or promoting criminal activity would not be tolerable.

But that would be wrong. Extremism was narrowly defined as “supremacist” beliefs only. That’s it. Nothing else. Nothing about anarchism, nothing about any group that might be found on the left. Everyone in the room – of every race, incidentally – had a collective hush as the chilling effect of this clearly biased definition dawned on our team. As one person on our team put it, “Why does the DoD only care about one kind of extremism? Why do they refuse to talk about antifa? Why is it extremist to attack a Capitol police officer, but not extremist to attack a Portland police officer?”

We were further lectured that “supremacists” were seeking to join the military to gain skills and proficiency with weapons. But, of course, we know that inner-city gangs have been trying this for years, and yet there was no discussion of this. Nor was there any mention of antifa, which explicitly and often openly promotes violent activities. It seems odd that in 2020, when we saw 1,000 riots with varying levels of violence, our training would be centered on the one riot connected to the right and ignore the 999 connected to the left.

Throughout the presentation, the drumbeat was consistent, constant…and chilling. This was a shot across the bow to the right, and deafening silence for the left. As true Americans, committed to our fellow servicemen and women, we should reject all extremism unequivocally from any source. My concern is that this blatantly political training is not only bad, it’s counter-productive. Extremists feed on paranoia, and the Department of Defense just fed them a healthy dose of it.

What do they think these people will do? Quit? Because some admiral made them sit through three hours of lectures? Hardly. They’ll go underground. And they’ll continue to fester. And so too will the left. Only no one will be watching out for them, because the brass’ silence speaks volumes. <Source>

Discussions of white supremacy or nationalism are often the keys to opening the door to critical race theory and promoting Marxist identity politics.

Pushback…

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) today introduced the Combatting Racist Training in the Military Act, a bill to prohibit the United States Armed Forces from promoting racist theories, most notably Critical Race Theory.

“Our military’s strength depends on the unity of our troops and the knowledge that America is a noble nation worth fighting for. Critical Race Theory teaches that race is a person’s most important characteristic, and that America is an evil, oppressive place. That idea may be fashionable in left-wing circles and college classrooms, but it has no place in our military. Not only will such racist ideas undermine our troops’ faith in each other, they’ll also erode their trust in our country’s guiding principles. The United States military shouldn’t be promoting such divisive, un-American ideas,” said Cotton. <Source>

The Combatting Racist Training in the Military Act would prohibit the United States Armed Forces and educational institutions operated or controlled by the Department of Defense—such as Service Academies—from promoting the following un-American and racist theories:

  1. Any race is inherently superior or inferior to any other race.
  2. The United States is a fundamentally racist country.
  3. The Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution are fundamentally racist documents.
  4. An individual’s moral worth is determined by his or her race.
  5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
  6. An individual, because of his or her race, bears responsibility for the actions committed by members of his or her race.

This bill would prevent the military from including such theories in trainings or other professional settings, if their inclusion would reasonably appear as an endorsement. It also would prohibit the military from hiring consultants to teach such theories, compelling individuals to profess belief in such theories, or segregating individuals on the basis of race in any setting.

The bill would not prevent any individual from accessing materials that contain such theories or otherwise exercising their lawful, protected speech. The bill also would not prevent the military from describing these theories or assigning works that advocate such theories in educational contexts that make clear the military does not sponsor, approve, or endorse them.


Bottom line…

Anything that promotes division and dissention in the officer corps or ranks is destructive of good order and discipline. Yet we find the Biden Administration doing just that to weaken our military. We need marksmanship, not Marxism.

To say that we are sacrificing our country, our Constitution, and our American way of life without firing a defensive shot is an understatement. Concentrating on gender equality and turning soldiers into thought and speech monitors rather than preparing for China, Iran, and North Korea is a clear and present danger to our nation.

Anyone capable of critical thinking can observe that progressive democrat socialism is the politics of slavery, segregation, and oppression. So, where is the opposition?
A President and Congress bought-off by our ideological and economic enemies like the Chinese?

We are so screwed.


“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



GUN RIGHTS IN HAWAII: TIME FOR VOLCANIC SACRIFICES?

The United States Constitution is neither a suicide pact nor an invitation to be overwhelmed and conquered by an armed adversary.

UNCLE-SAM-RUSSIAN-ROULETT

The media-hyped mass hysteria of the Democrats…

Once again, the words of Rahm Emanuel ring throughout the land, "Never let a crisis go to waste.” With a number of mass shootings committed by criminals, crazies, and terrorists, the progressive socialist democrats are attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights by redefining and limiting the scope of those rights within the law.

Asking the wrong question…

In a 215-page ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the theory, an artificial construct, that individuals generally do not have a constitutional Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon in public.  

A matter of commonsense and common law...

Given that criminals, crazies, and terrorists do not follow the law and, for the most part, do not legally obtain weapons;

Given that the government does not have a general duty to protect a specific individual and the government is generally immune from legal actions for damages relating to consequential harm;

Given that law enforcement authorities may not be available during a critical time period where intervention can affect the outcome of an encounter;

Given that the government can capriciously order law enforcement authorities to “stand down” and deny protection to individuals; and

Given that certain members of the government have an increasing fear of being held physically responsible for their tyrannical actions;

it appears to me that this particular court challenge involving the Second Amendment asks the wrong question.

The question is not whether individuals have a right to bear arms in public under the second amendment, but do you, as a lawful citizen, have an inalienable right to self-defense that supersedes the U.S. Constitution?

Excerpts from the published opinion…

While three 9th Circuit federal appeals court judges originally ruled in Young’s favor (2018), the State of Hawaii requested that the full panel of judges (en banc) hear the case.

<US-9th-Circuit-Court-hdr

YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII

(GEORGE YOUNG, JR. V. STATE OF HAWAII - No. 12-17808; D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00336- HG-BMK)

PUBLISHED OPINION SUMMARY

Civil Rights

The en banc court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action challenging Hawai‘i’s firearm licensing law, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 134-9(a), which requires that residents seeking a license to openly carry a firearm in public must demonstrate “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm, must be of good moral character, and must be “engaged in the protection of life and property.”

Appellant George Young applied for a firearm-carry license twice in 2011, but failed to identify “the urgency or the need” to openly carry a firearm in public. Instead, Young
relied upon his general desire to carry a firearm for self-defense.

Both of Young’s applications were denied. Young brought a challenge to Hawai‘i’s firearm-licensing law under the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The district court upheld Hawai‘i’s statute.

The en banc court first held that the scope of its review would be limited to Young’s facial challenge to HRS § 134-9.

There was no need to determine whether Hawai‘i County properly applied § 134-9, because Young did not bring an as-applied challenge.

The en banc court noted that this Court has previously held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public.

It should be noted that the ruling only affects right-to-carry laws in Alaska, Hawaii, California, Arizona, Oregon, the State of Washington, and Montana.

A ruling based on a “theme” …

“Our review of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: government has the power to regulate arms in the public square. History is messy and, as we anticipated, the record is not uniform, but the overwhelming evidence from the states’ constitutions and statutes, the cases, and the commentaries confirms that we have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces,”

Indeed, we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense.

The power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain called the ruling extreme. writing…

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self-defense in any other place.

This holding is as unprecedented as it is extreme. While our sister circuits have grappled with—and disagreed over—the question of whether public firearms carry falls within the inner “core” of the Second Amendment, we now become the first and only court of appeals to hold that public carry falls entirely outside the scope of the Amendment’s protections.

In so holding, the majority reduces the right to “bear Arms” to a mere inkblot. The majority’s decision undermines not only the Constitution’s text, but also half a millennium of Anglo-American legal history, the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and the foundational principles of American popular sovereignty itself.

Once again, we see another federal court ruling that the right to have and bear arms, as enshrined in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, is not absolute. And, while this published opinion is a departure from other federal rulings that have generally upheld Second Amendment rights, the case is likely to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Robert’s Court has a history of rulings that are blatantly unconstitutional and fabricated from whole cloth.

Bottom line…

A statistical rarity? To claim that less than 20 mass shootings in a population of 330 million are a pervasive problem demanding stringent gun regulation, registration, and confiscation is absurd. Likewise, creating regulations to prevent suicides, domestic violence, and gang disputes.

This is not a matter for scientists to study or bureaucrats to regulate, but a matter of life and death for individuals facing existential threats.  Many will agree that some degree of regulation is necessary and that we are simply arguing about the details. My belief is that while restrictions on military-level ordinance (grenades, rockets, and fully-automatic weapons) should be regulated, a citizen should have the firepower necessary to meet multiple threats and compensate for the lack of accuracy (missed shots) likely under periods of extreme stress. Hence, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, as the saying goes. 

As for the idiots who keep babbling about "assault rifles," the physical appearance of a gun is not an acceptable criterion. It may look like a military weapon, but it has the same functionality as any other semi-automatic firearm -- one trigger pull, one shot.  And, with more and more of the bad guys wearing ballistic protection and clothing, even now-illegal armor-piercing ammunition should be allowable. 

I wonder if anyone else has ever wondered if the Supreme Court Justices, being compensated government employees, has an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to ruling on matters involving the federal government and does that not speak to the necessity to impanel some ordinary non-lawyer citizens on the bench to bring a modicum of common sense to those whose noses are buried in law books?

If we want to reduce crime, the solution is to harden targets -- individuals carrying concealed arms are more likely than not to be a deterrent. For those who argue that more guns mean more suicides, spousal abuse, public arguments, and more unlawful behavior; the issue is with the individual, not the weapon. Nothing stops a seriously ill suicidal person from using any means at hand (drugs, knives, ropes, vehicles, jumping in front of a vehicle or off a high place, etc.) to commit suicide. Likewise, those individuals that use knives, chains, baseball bats, etc. to intimidate or harm others. 

We are so screwed.

-- steve

Reference: For those wishing free access to the case history and original documents, they can be found on Michel & Associates, my favorite gun rights attorneys, web site.


“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



IT'S OFFICIAL: THE KRAKEN IS KRAP

kraken

If you naively believed that there would be a day of reckoning when an odd cast of dodgy legal characters would enter a courtroom to demand discovery that would reveal the truth about the 2020 election regularities, you may have been bamboozled…

In an attempt to avoid a costly $1.3 BILLION defamation action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Attorney Sidney Powell, her law firm, and her fundraising organization, Powell’s legal representatives filed a revealing document titled, “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”

Some of the assertions in Powell’s pleading should come as no surprise to those who did not believe Powell’s fantastical tales of massive election manipulation by shadowy individuals – tales that sound like a fictional novel involving foreign intrigue.

Essentially, her defense against allegedly slandering Dominion and causing grave damage to their professional reputation and future business prospects is: the court lacks jurisdiction, the venue is improper and inconvenient, the Dominion action fails to state a claim, every statement she made is protected speech and not actionable, and that Dominion is a public figure which raises the bar to include the necessity of proving intentional malice. All lawyerly boilerplate.

Are you a “reasonable person” or a gullible groupie?

Here are a number of excerpts from US DOMINION, INC., DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, INC., and DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v.
SIDNEY POWELL, SIDNEY POWELL, P.C., and DEFENDING THE REPUBLIC, INC., Defendants. (Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00040-CJN)

Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry: Is the statement one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication.

Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo [for the sake of argument], that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.

Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.”

It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.”

Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.”

Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based. “[W]hen a defendant provides the facts underlying the challenged statements, it is ‘clear that the challenged statements represent his own interpretation of those facts,’ which ‘leav[es] the reader free to draw his own conclusions.’”

In short, the speech at issue here is not actionable. As political speech, it lies at the core of First Amendment protection; such speech must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

Additionally, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the statements, their context, and the availability of the facts on which the statements were based, it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern. Those members of the public who were interested in the controversy were free to, and did, review that evidence and reached their own conclusions—or awaited resolution of the matter by the courts before making up their minds. Under these circumstances, the statements are not actionable.

What Powell’s lawyers appear to be saying is that everything that Powell said about Dominion was protected political speech, and since “reasonable people” could look at the supporting documents, they can make up their own minds about the material presented. No harm, no foul.

If you believe that "no reasonable person" would take Powell's words at face value, the Kraken is, indeed, krap.

I call bullshit…

sidney-powell

One, much of the so-called “evidence” presented by Powell consisted of sworn declarations and affirmations, which the declarants and affiants swore were true in as far as that was their “belief.” To what extent should a “reasonable person” accept these assertions, representations, and allegations without knowing the author’s bona fides, motivation, and the circumstances surrounding their proffered information? I thought many of these individuals appeared to be somewhat dodgy, especially when it came to education and experience. At least to me, some appeared to be grifters, conspiracy nuts, and hangers-on out for a good time.

Two, most individuals, especially those who are relying on the professionalism of the attorneys involved, are inclined to believe that the attorney is somewhat truthful for; surely, they would not risk their reputation by throwing garbage at the court. Unfortunately, attorneys are not truth-tellers; they are advocates – sometimes for themselves as much as their clients. Thus, an attorney brings a significant “gravitas” to the matter, which can override the normal suspicions of a “reasonable person.”

As for the well-credentialed and well-experienced professional number-crunchers, I did not hear anyone mention that statistical analysis and calculated probabilities, in and of themselves, are not “proof” of anything – it only raises suspicions about matters that warrant further investigation. I read several incidents that could have an innocent or alternate explanation. And, I do not believe that anyone other than some certification groups outside of Dominion has examined the company's source code and what was actually uploaded to the election machines before, during, and after the election.

And three, I do not believe any individual, and especially attorneys, should be immune from being held responsible for their actions, especially when they are selling themselves and their advocacy of a particular position to the public to fundraise. Like any commercial venture, truth-in-advertising should prevail as well as caveat emptor -- let the buyer (or donor) beware.

But there remains a possibility of vote tampering…

I am waiting for an official explanation why an individual, known to be a political operative for democrat causes, had total access to voting venues, ballots, and possessed hidden log-ins meant to facilitate internet connectivity to voting machinery if and when required. This person was not a county official yet inserted himself in several election matters.

Democrats’ Operative Got Secret Internet Connection at Wisconsin Election Center, Emails Show

A veteran Democratic operative intricately involved in Green Bay’s November election was given access to “hidden” identifiers for the internet network at the hotel convention center where ballots were counted, according to emails obtained by Wisconsin Spotlight.

“One SSID will be hidden and it’s: 2020vote. There will be no password or splash page for this one and it should only be used for the sensitive machines that need to be connected to the internet,” Jameson wrote in his Oct. 27 email to Spitzer-Rubenstein.

Green Bay city officials insist the presidential election was “administered exclusively by city staff.” But the emails show that Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, Wisconsin state lead for the National Vote at Home Institute, had a troubling amount of contact with election administration Nov. 4.

Spitzer-Rubenstein, with an impressive political resume of working for Democratic politicians and campaigns, had significant influence over the administration of the presidential election in Green Bay and, it appears, in Milwaukee as well.

The Chicago-based Center for Tech and Civic Life received hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from Zuckerberg and his wife, money they pumped out in big grants to cities in the name of “safe elections.” <Source>

Bottom line…

I hope that the presiding Judge does not dismiss this defamation case and look forward to significant discovery and evidence that will be admissible and adjudicated as fact. Until then, it’s yada, yada, yada.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

l

l

l


“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS