Previous month:
March 14, 2021 - March 20, 2021
Next month:
March 28, 2021 - April 3, 2021


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?


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.


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



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.


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


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


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.



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


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



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?

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…


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




“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


Once again, we see the progressive socialist democrats and their mainstream media propagandists suggesting that white male gun-owners are somehow collectively responsible for the mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado. Ten individuals, including Eric Talley, 51, a Boulder police officer since 2010, were shot and killed by a lone gunman who opened fire at a King Soopers supermarket. The shooter’s motive remains unknown, but the word is that he used an “AR-style rifle” in the attack.


According to a police spokesperson, “The only person who suffered a significant injury was the suspect. The suspect was taken to Boulder Community Health’s Foothills Hospital. It is believed that this is a picture of the wounded shooter, although police refused to identify the person in the picture as the shooter.


The timing could not be better for the gun control crowd…

Can Colorado cities enact their own gun restrictions? A Boulder judge says no.

A judge blocked Boulder from enforcing its 2-year-old ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines in the city, setting up the chance for the state Supreme Court to review whether Colorado cities can create their own restrictions on gun ownership.

Boulder County District Court Judge Andrew Hartman ruled Friday that the city can’t enforce its ordinance banning the possession, transfer or sale of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines because state law says local governments can’t prohibit the possession or sale of firearms.

“These provisions are invalid, and enforcement of them is enjoined,” Hartman wrote in his ruling. “The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale and transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.”

Boulder city attorneys will meet with outside counsel this week to decide how to move forward and whether they will appeal Hartman’s decision, city spokeswoman Shannon Aulabaugh said. The Boulder Police Department will not enforce the ordinance unless there is a later court ruling undoing Hartman’s decision, she said. <Source>

Look for a renewed push to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights using emotion, not logic nor facts.

It’s beginning, the useful idiots in the social media are spinning the shooting into a political agenda…




Notice it is all about the weapon, rarely the individual pulling the trigger. But, then again, the prosecution and incarceration of individuals do not allow the progressive socialist democrats to disarm a law-abiding citizenry in violation of their God-given inalienable rights. Perhaps, necessary to make things easier on politicians and government entities moving leftward toward tyranny?


According to Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty, “This is a tragedy and a nightmare for Boulder County. These were people going about their day, doing their shopping. I promise the victims and the people of the state of Colorado that we will secure justice.”

In my opinion, there are no circumstances that suggest leniency -- and justice demands the death penalty – and not ten to twenty years later. Yet, we have the Biden Administration openly condemning the death penalty for the most clear-cut of cases. We will wait to see if Biden’s Attorney General fights to re-impose the death penalty on the Boston Marathon bomber in a case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bottom line…

There is no law in the land that will prevent crazies, criminals, or terrorists from obtaining a weapon and committing a heinous act upon other individuals. To deny individuals, their God-given rights of self-defense is both immoral and unconstitutional.

And, to the progressive socialist democrats who want to defund the police and replace them with mental health counselors, which mental health professional wants to walk up to the shooter and talk him, face-to-face, into surrendering?

Sensationalism attracts an audience, and an audience attracts advertising revenues and political power. These things happen from time-to-time, and through the power of the mainstream media or social media platforms are amplified, repeated, and exploited on a near-endless loop  – turning a local tragedy into a national disaster that can be federalized by power-hungry politicians seeking media attention and campaign contributions.

Violence has always been part of human nature since the dawn of civilization. We can suppress it with morality and civility, but we cannot eliminate it completely. Likewise, those inclined to violence will always find another means to carry out their heinous acts. To disarm a law-abiding citizenry is to encourage more thuggery, murder, and mayhem.

Look at any inner city governed by progressive socialist democrats with their repressive gun control laws and lax criminal prosecutions and ask why they don’t do more to curtail massive black-on-black shootings? Why do minority gangs still exist? And, why is the judicial industry, and the lawyers that make the laws, still profiting from drugs and serious crime?

We may be screwed. But, under the Second Amendment, we can choose to protect ourselves from being on our knees, sniveling, and begging for the lives of our family. That is American individualism, and a weapon is only an equalizer in a desperate fight.

Take a moment and say a prayer for the victims and their families. Especially for the officer who risked everything as he was first through the door.

-- 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 what universe does a Republican Senator threaten a majority-Democrat Senate with doing the right thing for the nation should the Democrats destroy the filibuster, a congressional tool against tyranny?


We are living in legislatively dangerous times where a thin-majority has allowed the Democrats to exhibit outrageous and unconstitutional behavior, including two bogus impeachments of a sitting president while excusing a massive coordinated Democrat conspiracy that should be considered prosecutable traitorous subversion.

Except for former President Ronald Reagan and former President Donald Trump, the Republicans have been corrupt, incompetent, inefficient, and feckless protectors of America. Including our Constitution, sovereignty, economy, culture, and the uniqueness of America and Americans. Or, as the saying goes, the Republicans seem to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when faced with a corrupt, vicious opponent willing to say or do anything to advance their agenda – eating the whole salami one piece at a time.

In front of their very eyes, those who do not wish America well, subverted education, the media, and the bureaucracies of most government agencies. So why am I not surprised when the Senate Minority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, threatens the Democrats who want to kill the legislative filibuster with doing the right things for America and Americans. Should this not be McConnell’s default position and goal?

McConnell’s threat in the Wall Street Journal editorial page…

If the Democrats kill the legislative filibuster, history would repeat itself, but more dramatically.

As soon as Republicans wound up back in control, we wouldn’t stop at erasing every liberal change that hurt the country. We’d strengthen America with all kinds of conservative policies with zero input from the other side.

[OCS: Huh? You are threatening to do what is required to repair the damage created by Democrat legislation passed by a slim majority and to implement legislation that would strengthen America? Since when is doing the right thing for America viewed as a THREAT. In my opinion, it should be a PROMISE.]

How about a nationwide right-to-work law? Defunding Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities on day one? A whole new era of domestic energy production. Sweeping new protections for conscience and the right to life of the unborn? Concealed-carry reciprocity in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Massive hardening of security on our southern border?

[OCS: Why didn’t the Republicans do this when they held the House, the Senate, and the Presidency – and could do it without resorting to easily cancelable Executive Orders?

(1)  Considering that unions introduce costs, delays, inefficiencies, and friction into any system they touch, it appears that this is a commonsense reversal of European-style socialism with their restrictive and repressive guilds. Given that public employee unions are bankrupting our municipalities and states, and provide a clear link between unions and political corruption, public employee unions should be abolished.

(2)  You cannot find abortion anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and it seems unconstitutional to demand the federal government fund a particular aspect of healthcare.

(3)  The leadership of sanctuary cities should be cited for violating their oath of office where they have sworn or affirmed they will “… support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that they will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” as well as being prosecuted, fined, and imprisoned for violating long-standing federal laws which protect our national sovereignty and the safety and security of America.

(4)  Energy independence is not only an economic necessity, but it speaks to the national security of the United States and the ability to conduct foreign affairs without regard for the necessity to purchase foreign energy or arm those hostile to U.S. interests.

(5)  Rights of conscience are enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment, providing for religious freedoms. As to the right to life of the unborn, this should not be negotiable after a certain point in the gestation process. I do not know what that point should be, so I will leave it up to medical ethicists and my fellow Americans.

(6)  Concealed carry anywhere is a no-brainer as it is simply an expression of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right to self-defense is a God-given inalienable right. As for being a response to a tyrannical government, one need only consider how nervous legislators appear when faced with unarmed protesters. Concealed carry should be coupled with initiatives supporting individual responsibility and the punishment of gun-related crime.

(7)  Borders are what defines a nation and conveys value to citizenship. That borders should be protected is a historical imperative.]

Even now, we saw during amendment votes days ago that certain common-sense Republican positions enjoy more support in the current Senate than some of the Democratic committee chairmen’s priorities—and this is with them in the majority.

The pendulum would swing both ways, and it would swing hard.

Less than two months ago, two of our Democratic colleagues said they understand that. If they keep their word, we have a bipartisan majority that can put principle first and save the Senate.

[OCS: Trusting a Democrat to keep their word is like playing Russian Roulette with five of the six chambers of a revolver loaded with ammunition.]


Bottom line…

The vast majority of Americans intrinsically know and understand the difference between good and evil, right from wrong, and freedom and tyranny. So why do they continue to vote against their own core values and self-interest?  Could it be that they are apathetic, lazy, or merely conditioned to believe that the Democrats are benign forces for good? Do they care that the Democrats and feckless Republicans are destroying the country?

The fact that the Democrats ran a communist, a corrupt lying Marxist, and a mentally incapacitated candidate for President of the United States should say it all.

This next election will tell.

Until then, we are majorly 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 old political saying that "when everything is important, nothing is important" has never been truer.

It appears that the mainstream media moguls and tech tyrants have perfected the art of whipsawing Republicans into disarray, promoting division, distraction, denial, and delusions that lead the GOP down the proverbial rabbit hole.


If you were to analyze recent media coverage and social media chatter, it appears that the following subjects are of supreme importance to the progressive socialist democrats…

  • Trump supporters;
  • White nationalism and domestic terrorism;
  • Systemic racism and identity-based discrimination;
  • Gun violence;
  • Police brutality against minorities;
  • Voter suppression and manipulation;

…whereas Republicans appear to be concerned with…

  • Immigration and illegal aliens; 
  • Election integrity; 
  • The decline of law and order and tolerance for destructive and dangerous civil disobedience;
  • The economy, jobs, taxes, and the economic realities of inflation;
  • Media bias and censorship; 
  • Abortion;

... and neither party has much interest in…

  • Political corruption and government waste, fraud, and abuse;
  • The rise of the self-serving "professional politician;"
  • Corrupt and self-serving congressional rules;
  • The laziness of Congress and the outsourcing of legislation to Executive branch agencies;
  • State’s rights; and
  • An increasingly timid and partisan Supreme Court.

The truth is that political parties and politicians deliberately withhold, for psychological reasons, the realities of living in today's world…

It’s much easier, popular, and profitable for the media moguls and tech tyrants to sell political myths to a semi-aware public than report the hard truths that lead to the conclusion that, while both parties are corrupt and self-serving, the root of most of our political problems can be attributed to the democrat party and the acquiescence of impotent Republicans.

Bottom line… 

Did you work all year to feed, house, and clothe yourself and your family? Only to see “relief checks” given to prisoners and illegal aliens? Or to see “emergency powers” misused to further a progressive socialist democrat agenda that had nothing to do with providing relief to citizens suffering under inconsistent, illogical, and sometimes counterproductive pandemic edicts issued by local, state, and the federal government?

Now it is time to stand up and be counted.

To vote overwhelmingly for the GOP to ensure fair and honest elections at the heart of our republic, redress previous illegalities, reform the system to prevent a majority with a thin margin from taking over our nation and fundamentally transforming it into a socialist state like Venezuela – once the most prosperous country in South America.

Concentrate on the three most important measures and hit them hard, day-after-day, drawing comparisons with the destructive progressive socialist democrats and their unconstitutional and un-American agenda.

  • Election integrity to ensure a fair vote, provide transparency, prevent fraudulent tampering, and eliminate one-party bias. Without a secure election system, our Republic is doomed.
  • Immigration to ensure guest workers, visitors, and legitimate immigrants follow the rules and prevent hordes of illegals from overwhelming and crushing our economy, culture, and political system. Including our safety nets to which we have contributed to all of our lives. 
  • The Rule of Law that holds individuals, not classes of individuals, accountable for their actions. Without holding individuals responsible for their actions they are incentivized to continue their unlawful activities.

It’s up to you whether the progressive socialist democrats divide and conquer our nation or we unite to restore our nation to its glory as a freedom-loving republic. Do not let anyone, the government, the media moguls, the tech tyrants, or any organization force you into self-censoring your observations and comments. It may be painful and you risk cancellation, but not as painful as living under authoritarian socialism.

Protect yourself and your family first. Politics is not a team sport and your current peers are unlikely to support you in hard times. Fight on.

-- 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