Here’s the thing: The sociopaths and criminals are in charge of the judicial system. At least at the top, where it ultimately counts. Trump cannot stay free in such a situation. He will be arrested, tried and convicted for his virtues (not his vices). With Trump will go what’s left of the Bill of Rights, which — in terms of practice — has become pretty nominal anyway.

Unless the entire military turns on the sociopaths who command them (both in the civilian and military sectors, at the top), which will not happen, I don’t think, then there’s no hope other than a clean sweep election. But we had something like that in 2016, and look how far it got us. The RINOs became even more entrenched and joined the other side, and Trump was left out to hang and dry.

These are not merely the times that try men’s souls; these are the times that CRUSH men’s souls, especially when so many of us remain passive and helpless, worried about offending our leftist friends or relatives who actually support the sociopaths in everything they’re doing (and worse to come).

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

San Francisco recently announced a plan that seeks to provide reparations for the Black community. Under this proposal, every eligible Black adult in San Francisco would receive payments of $5 million, elimination of personal debt and tax burdens, a guaranteed annual income of at least $97,000 for 250 years, and the ability to purchase a home in San Francisco for only $1.

The cost for this plan would be $600,000 per non-Black family or roughly $250 billion dollars in total to taxpayers.

This is not a parody; this is an actual proposal. [Wesley Hunt, writing at Fox News]

It’s insanity, for sure. Even if it doesn’t pass, it’s insanity just to PROPOSE such a thing.

Many ask if the government has a right to do such a thing, or whether it’s moral to take money from one racial group to give to another — because of what happened to the distant ancestors of the recipients.

Valid questions, for sure. But nobody ever asks: What would such a transfer of wealth do to the recipients? What kind of person would it reward? And what kind of person would it punish? Imagine if the government gave you millions of dollars tomorrow because of your last name; or because of your eye color. Perhaps you’d love having the money. But what would it really do to your pride; your self-respect; your ability to get along with other people whose good will and high regard — based on achievements you have EARNED — would matter to you?

All of that would be out the window.

Remember, the people NOT getting the $5 million — if they’re productive — will have paid heavily in taxes for you to get these inconceivable freebies. We’re not talking about welfare. We’re talking about massive, massive transfers of wealth. And free houses in the most expensive real estate market in the world.

And if you don’t pay much or anything in taxes, you’ll still pay indirectly — through inflation. If you think the price of eggs and cars and gas are bad now — just wait until the government inflates and debases the currency at 100,000 the current rate in order to finance the debt and deficits to pay for all this.

With millions of people ANGRY at you for getting $5 million, a free mansion and never having to pay taxes again while the rest of the world becomes Venezuela … do you think your life would be all that enviable? Do you think race relations would improve or deteriorate, with such brazen racial favoritism of one race over another? What in the world do you think this is going to solve, if you’re one of those blindly Democratic Party supporting leftists out there?

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

I would say that George Soros has almost single-handedly destroyed America by putting district attorneys throughout the U.S. openly committed to our destruction. But so many others are committed to our destruction that Soros need not take all the credit.

To uphold the Constitution, you will have to openly disobey the authorities who have seized control of America. To be law-abiding, you will have to break the law. Welcome to life under a one-party dictatorship. Does secession seem so bad now? America is not a republic. It’s an occupation. No different than if the Nazis or Japanese had won back in the 1940s.

Trump never arrested Obama, Hillary & the Bidens when he had the chance. Look what it got us. Criminals at the controls.

Pacifism does not work. You fight force with force. Criminals and sociopaths will never back down, unless forcibly stopped.

It won’t end with Trump. The war is against dissenters. If Trump goes down, the entire Bill of Rights goes with him.

It’s such a great time to be a tyrant!

Remember: A government big enough to jail an ex-President for political differences is bad enough to put you into a prison camp. Or worse.

Oh, c’mon!

They have done it again, and in a way that makes a flaming mockery of both honest market economics and the so-called rule of law. In effect, the triumvirate of fools at the Fed, Treasury and FDIC have essentially guaranteed $9 trillion of uninsured bank deposits with no legislative mandate and no capital to make these sweeping promises good.

That’s right. In the case of the direct bailout of all depositors at SVB and Signature Bank, these closed institutions have now been ridiculously christened on a postmortem basis as “SIFIs” (systematically important financial institutions). That makes them eligible for a hidden backdoor bailout mechanism in the 2009 Dodd-Frank Act, which gave authorities the power to guarantee any and all bank deposits above the standard $250,000 limit.

You might say “who knew” our brilliant legislators deemed public guarantees of the deposits of giant hedge funds and Fortune 500 companies, among like and similar “deserving” others, to be an essential “reform” warranted by the lessons of 2008?

Then again, we will just note the hideous abuse of language implicit in this weekend’s maneuver. Total assets of the US banking system amounted to $30.4 trillion at the end of 2021. Accordingly, the $110 billion of assets at Signature bank amount to 0.36% of the total and SVB’s assets of $210 billion were just 0.70% of the banking system’s assets.

If these sub-1% entities are indeed “systematically important”, then riddle us this: Why were these cesspools of reckless banking not declared to be SIFIs back in 2011 along with JP Morgan ($3.7 trillion of assets), Bank of America ($4.1 trillion of assets) and the rest of the two dozen SIFI big boys, who at least had to adhere to enhanced capital and liquidity standards in return for getting the SIFI trophy?

Indeed, notwithstanding all the Mickey Mouse aspects of the SIFI capital standards regime, it might well be wondered whether Signature and SVB would still be open today had they needed to adhere to JP Morgan levels of capital and liquidity, but one thing is certain: Getting the benefits of a posthumous SIFI designation that they were never required to adhere to while they were still among the living is a new low in Washington servility to the powerful. In this case, the billionaire overlords of Silicon Valley and the VC racket whose deposits were at risk until about 6PM Sunday night.

And yet, and yet. The grotesque bailout of the large depositors who wear the Big Boy Pants at these institutions is just the tip-of-the-iceberg of the outrage warranted by this weekend’s pitiful capitulation…

David Stockman

Honestly, if you’d told me just a few years ago that the Democrat Party would become a party that literally hates the United States…well, I probably would have believed you because they do and have for a very long time. However, if you’d also told me they would proudly proclaim that hatred with regularity, that entire cable networks would be dedicated to preaching that hatred, you probably would’ve lost me there. Not anymore.

I would not have believed any political organization would proudly proclaim they despise that which they seek to lead, but that’s where we find ourselves now. There are countless examples of this, everywhere you look. Even the President of the United States calls half the country monsters and transphobes simply because we don’t think children should be subjected to sexualization of any kind, let alone having an adult grind their crotch in their face, or have their body butchered in the name of some weird “progress.”

There are literally hundreds of examples on a weekly basis of some leftist on cable news smearing everyone and the country and “fundamentally this” or “that to the core.” Hell, Joy Reid makes a living simply burping out “this person is a racist” or “that thing is racist.” She’s so oppressed she’s paid millions of dollars per year to chase away the audience from the show before hers. If merit mattered, Joy would be homeless. But she has her job for different reasons, ability be damned.

Then we have this piece from the New York Times, it really boils everything the left is now down to its essence. Democrats are only close to honest when dealing with other Democrats, and the Times is the ultimate choir-preacher.

It’s entitled, “Can We Put an End to America’s Most Dangerous Myth?” Is it about the idea that country was founded on and for racism? No, the Times makes too much money off that one.

So, what is this “myth”? “Our most toxic myth is our “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” individualism,” the piece contends.

…

Yes, that’s right, individuality is “toxic.” The idea that Americans are independent, able to live within their means and stand on their own is a huge problem…says the Communist Manifesto, er, this column.

“So, yes, some independence is worth honoring,” the author allows. “But other strains are not as positive. For instance, being required to be ‘independent’ when we are ill and without adequate health insurance coverage is not to be recommended. Neither is having to take care of our children entirely on our own, in the silo of our immediate family, without a state-supported nursery in sight. And going into debt for simply covering the cost of our own or our children’s college education is far from salutary.”

Socialism, essentially, is what she’s pushing for here. Never mind looking at why some many of those “problems” exist (Democrat policies), just know that you shouldn’t have to deal with them because…progressive, or something.

What the column is complaining about isn’t individuality, really, it’s responsibility. That your actions have consequences and you should maybe consider them when making choices. No, Democrats would rather absolve you of the consequences for your actions – a political priest – as long as you obey them. They’ll give you just enough to get by, bless away your mistakes, and never look back at the destruction in their wake.

Meanwhile, people will be so dependent on government for their existence, and desperate for more absolution, that a blind loyalty will be created in the voting booth. Like a junkie always in need of another hit, people hooked on the concept of no personal responsibility are always in need of being told it’s not their fault, especially when it is.

The conclusion of the piece reads, “Dependence is, if you think of it, a form of connection and social cohesion. It brings us closer to others, which at this moment in America might be the thing we need most.” That’s exactly the opposite of reality, of what we need. Unless, of course, your goal isn’t to empower people or get out of their way so they can make their lives better, but rather to make people serfs; junkies who will do your electoral bidding if you just give them another hit. I’m not saying that’s what Democrats want to do, but it’s what Democrats want to do…

Derek Hunter, Townhall

It’s not just that the government SHOULDN’T bail out banks. It CAN’T bail out banks — not truly.

How can the GOVERNMENT guarantee your deposit? If every bank collapsed, then everyone’s money would be worthless. The government could not simply command the banks into profitability, as that ranting, decrepit dementia patient in the White House claims. In the much more probable scenario that SOME banks collapse (two so far), then the government CAN take money from profitable bank accounts (via taxes, or more inflationary debt) and bail out the people with accounts in the failed banks. But this has the effect of rewarding bad investments and keeps both bank owners and deposit holders from making necessary corrections. The market and economy as a whole will suffer, making additional depressions, recessions and additional bank failures more likely.

If you think the government can truly shield you from your own or another’s mistake WITHOUT causing someone else to pay for it, you probably believe in Santa Claus, too.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason