Not Yours to Give

[The following story about the famed American icon Davy Crockett was published in Harper’s Magazine in 1867, as written by James J. Bethune, a pseudonym used by Edward S. Ellis. The events that are recounted here are true, including Crockett’s opposition to the bill in question, though the precise rendering and some of the detail are fictional.]

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Davy Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown . It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and–’

“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown . Is that true?’

“‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown , neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington , no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’


“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him–no, that is not the word–I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted–at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“‘Fellow-citizens–I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said:

“‘Fellow-citizens–It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men–men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Holders of political office are but reflections of the dominant leadership–good or bad–among the electorate.

Horatio Bunce is a striking example of responsible citizenship. Were his kind to multiply, we would see many new faces in public office; or, as in the case of Davy Crockett, a new Crockett.

America’s in Bad Shape

Lockdowns for 3 months. Democratic mayors/governors exercise unlimited dictatorial power through permanent “emergency” orders, closing churches, closing private businesses, rewarding and loosening restrictions on the politically favored — left-wing rioters, weed shops, abortion clinics. Republicans shamed into doing the same, in a more limited way.

Rioting and anarchy unpunished by Democrat mayors — and openly supported by some.

Lockdowns loosened and then reinstated for no apparent reason, other than skewed numbers that reflect massive increases in testing. Republicans quickly shamed to do the same. Locking down, loosening and then locking down again arguably WORSE than simply locking down for good. It’s like letting a prisoner out, and then abruptly putting him back in solitary confinement.

It’s sick, sadistic and wrong. Millions of Americans applaud it — revealing that millions of Americans are sick, sadistic, masochistic and truly bad. Millions more curse it, but without doing anything about it. They’re productive, law-abiding good people. What are they to do? Riot in the streets? It’s not their way. And if they did — unlike the Black Lives Matter terrorists, they’d be mowed down.

President Trump doesn’t seem to WANT to fall for it. But he appears to keep falling for it. He’s all we’ve got. But will he be able to defeat these terrorizing, evil tyrants who still call themselves “Democrats”?

America is in trouble. Please show me where I’m wrong.

Michael J. Hurd

How Tightly Does the DNC Control the Rioters ?

How Tightly Does the Democratic Party Control the Rioters?—by John Zmirak

In my last column I wondered who was in the saddle in riot-torn blue cities. Was it Antifa and Black Lives Matter, or the Democratic Party? Does the Democratic National Committee have the power to call the looters in to start urban chaos and shake business leaders down for donations? To make President Trump look weak, for tolerating this disorder? Or better yet, tempt him to overreact with a blood-soaked crackdown?

Even more importantly, can the Democrats call off the wolves when things go too far? For instance, when terrified citizens in a blue state or city put too much pressure on local Democrats, maybe pushing them to send in National Guardsmen with fixed bayonets? That would backfire spectacularly on Democrats, enraging their most unhinged leftist street squads, as happened in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

The game of political chicken continues in embattled American cities. But only those run by Democrats. Not a single city in a red state, as far as I’ve seen, has witnessed extensive rioting. Here in Dallas (blue city, red state) rioters trashed my beloved Downtown for a single night. They smashed the front windows of my parish, which serves the homeless. Then they met the National Guard, which herded them onto buses, and shipped them back out of town.

Send in the Commandos
That fact is suggestive to me. It suggests that the hard left within the Democratic party is using the mobs to push “reforms” it hasn’t the political nerve to present the old-fashioned way — you know, via legislation and popular votes. But a city council can vote to defund the police in the face of a ravening horde (as in Minneapolis), a proposal that in normal times would get laughed at.

And of course, all those torn-down or headless statues sends a powerful message to citizens who don’t back the radicals’ policies. We have the power to strike you whenever you want. The cops won’t protect you, and the Second Amendment is a dead letter here. Cough up donations, and maybe we’ll spare you. If Trump wins, expect more of the same.

You Sure You Want to Cast that Vote?
Yes, these riots are a form of election tampering. What Russia never achieved in 2016, the Democrats are pulling off now, with hooded, violent white people intimidating voters just as the Klan did in past decades. Just how comfortable do you think black voters attracted to Donald Trump — as millions are — will feel trooping out to vote for him past burned out storefronts, at precincts run by those who cheered on the riots?

Now I’m mostly convinced that the rioters are under tight political discipline, imposed via networks of leftist organizations funded by wealthy donors, of whom George Soros is merely the most anti-Semitic. Why do I think that?

Someone Pulled a String
Because of Seattle. Remember that leftist separatist enclave that Antifa and BLM set up, seizing six city blocks? Its supporters never quite settled on a name, vacillating between “CHAZ” and “CHOP.” To save time, I called it “Wankistan.”

Thousands of innocent Americans got trapped in that enclave, where assaults and rapes could flourish, in the absence of police. Virtual warlords strutted around, imposing “street justice” on hapless reporters, suspected spies, and dissidents. Republicans railed at the Washington State governor, demanding he reimpose order. But that would have backfired, hideously.

And besides, it wasn’t necessary. Wankistan is now dissolving itself peacefully, and almost instantaneously. Almost as if it had served its purpose, and the puppeteers behind Antifa and Black Lives matter made a simple phone call, pulling its strings. As if the rioters were paramilitary forces, who follow orders.

Learning from the Brown Shirts
Antifa traces its heritage back to Communist street militias who battled the Nazis, and beat up hapless Social Democrats and Catholics in the streets of Weimar Germany. They lost those battles, and learned from the national socialists who beat them. They learned a powerful lesson: The overwhelming synergy of biased public authorities and ruthless political street thugs. In Weimar, the public authorities might have feared the Nazis’ zeal and tut-tutted at their tactics (cracking heads and murdering Jews). But they sympathized with them as hard-core enemies of Communism.

So when the police arrested both sides in a Red/Brown brawl, only the Communists went to prison. The brown shirts got slapped on the wrist — as Hitler himself was. His Beer Hall Putsch was an act of treason. He should have been put up against a wall and summarily shot. Instead, he got a short prison term in a cozy cell, with a private secretary and a typewriter. He came out with the manuscript of Mein Kampf, as a major political figure.

That’s how Democratic officials are treating the thugs of Antifa and BLM. Those who learn from history are tempted to repeat it.

Burn Down the System
Do you think maybe I’m overstating the radicalism of the forces we confront? Don’t listen to me then. Listen to them. The leader of Black Lives Matter in New York is Hank Newsome. Here’s what he was unafraid to say on national television, to Martha MacCallum of Fox News:

“You … have said that violence is sometimes necessary in these situations,” host Martha MacCallum told Newsome. “What exactly is it that you hope to achieve through violence?”

“Wow, it’s interesting that you would pose that question like that,” Newsome responded, “because this country is built upon violence. What was the American Revolution, what’s our diplomacy across the globe?

“We go in and we blow up countries and we replace their leaders with leaders who we like. So for any American to accuse us of being violent is extremely hypocritical.”

“I said,” Newsome told the host, “if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking … figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation.

“Let’s observe the history of the 1960s, when black people were rioting,” he went on. “We had the highest growth in wealth, in property ownership. Think about the last few weeks since we started protesting. There have been eight cops fired across the country.”

“I don’t condone nor do I condemn rioting,” Newsome added. “But I’m just telling you what I observed.”

“I just want black liberation and black sovereignty, by any means necessary.”

Maybe Newsome is just an outlier, who rose to the top in the backwater that is the NYC metropolitan area.

No, he isn’t. Here’s some scoop about BLM national co-founder, Patrisse Cullors, courtesy of David Harris:

BLM co-founder, Patrisse Cullors, spent ten years being mentored by Weather Underground terrorist and Bill Ayers; comrade Eric Mann. That is where she learned political organizing and the Marxist/Leninist regimen that has shaped her world view according to the Gateway Pundit.

Mann was not only a member of the terror group, Weather Underground but Students for a Democratic Society as well in the 60s and 70s. They were noted for bombing police stations and government buildings.

The Democrats are willing to turn our cities over to people like this, even while Trump is president. Can you imagine how emboldened they’d be with Zombie Biden in the White House?

Here’s a hint: The Biden campaign still refuses to condemn the mob attacks on statues of Ulysses S. Grant.

The Hollowness of Virtue Signaling


There’s an interesting line in Tim Alberta’s Politico story linked in our “Picks” section today about the attitudes of black voters: “Biden choosing a woman of color might actually irritate, not appease, Black voters.”

I’ve been wondering if this kind of sentiment might be much deeper and more widespread than this comment indicates. Talk is cheap. Action is another matter.

It is not news that virtually every institution of higher education has turned up their rhetorical anti-racist bona fides to 11 in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. The University of California is no exception. But the labor union that represents many UC employees issued this notice yesterday:

Oakland, CA — University of California employees will mount pickets in front of UC Hospitals across the state Wednesday in response to recent notifications that at least two hundred of the institution’s lowest paid workers—almost entirely workers of color— will be laid off for at least 10 weeks into the fall.

In recent weeks, University Administrators have notified workers that despite strong hospital revenues, receipt of hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal Coronavirus Relief funds, and more than $10 billion in unrestricted cash reserves, it would begin laying off employees. The first notices went out to approximately 200 primarily food service workers at UC San Diego and UC Riverside over the past week. The workers make annual salary of $41,000/per year, and the layoffs are expected to save the $40 billion UC system a total of $1.5 million—or four thousandths of one percent. . .

UC’s latest round of layoffs against AFSCME 3299 represented workers follows similar action by the UC Hastings College of the Law in late May. Despite $83 million in cash reserves and a $6 million surge in private donations over the past year, Hastings Administrators announced a first round of layoffs impacting 8 AFSCME 3299 represented employees– who had each worked at the school an average of 12 years and were all people of color—in late May.

Gee, you’d think that the University of California could think of some way to put their money where their big mouth is to save the paychecks of people of color, maybe by furloughing or laying off a multiple-six figure white administrator or something, or cutting professor salaries by 5 percent.

Then there’s the enthusiasm for issuing a Land Declaration about the injustice of owning land that once belonged to native Americans. The one I’ve seen runs as follows:

LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: We recognize that Berkeley sits on the territory of Huichin, the ancestral and unceded land of the Chochenyo Ohlone, the successors of the historic and sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County. This land was and continues to be of great importance to the Ohlone people. We recognize that every member of the Berkeley community has benefitted from, and continues to benefit from, the use and occupation of this land since the institution’s founding in 1868. Consistent with our values of community and diversity, we have a responsibility to acknowledge and make visible the university’s relationship to Native peoples. By offering this Land Acknowledgement, we affirm Indigenous sovereignty and will work to hold the University of California, Berkeley more accountable to the needs of American Indian and Indigenous peoples.

Here’s one idea for making “Berkeley more accountable” for occupying “unceded land” of native Americans: Give it back. Or at the very least pay fair compensation. Funny how no one ever suggests either of these steps. All native Americans are offered is an “acknowledgement.” That and 25 cents won’t even get you a thimble of coffee.

The insincerity of leftist statements on these matters is obvious to everyone except the people making them.

By the way, did you know that Bishop George Berkeley, for whom both the City of Berkeley and the University were named, owned slaves? (You could see that coming a mile off, couldn’t you?) Berkeley not only owned slaves, but donated them and his plantation to . . . wait for it . . . Yale University!

I guess Berkeley will need to change its name too.

Democrat Voters are to Blame

The Communist Democratic Party platform:

Until there’s a vaccine for COVID, and until we are 100 percent sure every single person has been injected, there will be lockdowns and masks.

Until police prove they will never, ever shoot a criminal again, there will be no police.

And, by the way, we’re taking your guns away, we’re ending free speech, and we’re ending your ability to watch any non-leftist speak, starting with President Trump and his rallies.

And don’t forget: No gasoline as fuel in 10 years. No more airplanes. Few or no cars. After that, it’s back to Little House on the Prairie. Except for important public officials and their connections, of course.

And 90 percent tax rates, government-run medicine and a government-run finance system. Meaning you can’t finance a house unless you’re connected and correct with the government. And churches meet or assemble only when government grants permission. COVID, you know.

We will accomplish all this by scaring you, and, when all else fails, with brute force. But without police. Well, without police as we know them. We’ll get a new kind of police … the Stalinist kind.

If you call yourself a Democrat, then this is what you stand for. I call you a horrific hybrid of Communist, fascist and totalitarian.

Ideas have consequences in tangible, everyday reality. Anyone who supports and votes for what these leftists are doing is personally responsible for what happens to our country.

No free passes for Democrat voters. Not anymore.–Michael J. Hurd

How the Chi-coms Bought the Vatican

WHAT WE ALL KNEW: Red China Bought the Vatican In the Deal Brokered By Ted “Blanche” McCarrick for the Bargain Price of $2Billion per year
HOW MUCH DOES AN ANTICHURCH COST? $2 Billion per year, apparently.

HIV antiretroviral scrips, cocaine, rent boys and child sex slaves ain’t cheap, folks.

IF the $2 Billion per year figure is accurate, it is some of the most “effective” tactical money ever deployed.

Now do we fully understand why Antipope Bergoglio and the whole wretched cabal are so aggressively evil? Why they openly preach Marxism and hatred of God and His Holy Church? Why Antipope Begoglio and his cabal are all 100% on board with the fake CoronaCold crime against humanity?

Remember who brokered the destruction of the Catholic Church in China: Blanche McCarrick – one of the most notorious and open boy chasers in the Church. Upon usurping the See with McCarrick being a key “kingmaker” in the invalid faux-conclave of March ARSH 2013, Antipope Bergoglio INSTANTLY sent McCarrick to China to broker this deal. Theodore McCarrick is one of the most evil human beings alive today, and that’s saying something.

I wrote a while back about psychopathy and criminality being a FEATURE not a bug in the institutional Church. The perfect exemplar of this is Fr. Thomas Williams the Legion of Christ kingpin, who poses as a “conservative” and does cut-and-paste stories for Breitbart (Steve Bannon hired Fr. Williams when Fr. Williams was about to be exposed for having sex with his students in Rome, and presumably defrocked.) The bigger the psycho, the higher and faster he rises. Evil people flock together. Sewage coagulates. Speaking of which…


Ayn Rand: Argument from Intimidation

Ayn Rand always warned about the “argument from intimidation.” This refers to people getting you to back away from your fact-based position based on emotional intimidation. For example, “You can’t say X, because you’re white, and that means you have white privilege.” Or, “You’re a man, so you can’t make a comment about what constitutes sexual harassment against a woman.” But what does being white or male have to do with the truth or falsehood of something?
The latest example of the argument from intimidation: “Oh, so you subscribe to a conspiracy theory.” You get this when you challenge the value or justification of continuing coronavirus lockdowns. This comes from the same people who believed, without any evidence, that Russia and Trump falsified election results — in a conspiracy — so that Trump could become President. Despite the obvious fact that any American adversary would prefer a Democratic President — or any President — over Donald Trump. The same people who buy this crap accuse you of being a “conspiracy theorist” if you even suggest that coronavirus lockdowns are about politics, government control or anything other than the safety of individuals. Their naive and dishonest premise: “All the facts and figures that our government gives us are true. Therefore, to question the value of continued coronavirus lockdowns is to question science.”

So we’re supposed to naively assume that state and local governments always give us honest facts and figures in order to continue with lockdowns they clearly never intend to end. Yet in states where the governments are more moderate — let’s say Florida — we are NOT to believe anything they say. And if President Trump cites any figures of any kind, “Well, those are automatically wrong.”

It’s the same with mass events. BLM protests? Antifa looting? Not only is there no coronavirus danger, in those situations. You are RACIST if you even express the concern. You shall be intimidated and perhaps coercively silenced if you suggest an inconsistency. A Trump rally? Why, even planning such a thing will immediately lead to the death of thousands, if not millions. If you go to a Trump rally, or support its existence, then you are no different than a Nazi ordering victims into concentration camps. That’s what the argument from intimidation states these days.

So basically, if you believe anything that supports the continued totalitarian tyranny of state and local governments — as well as the federal government, once they can install a Communist puppet like the decrepit Biden to take over the federal bureaucracy again — then you are rational, scientific and objective. But the moment you point to facts or logic that suggest maybe the lockdown wasn’t necessary, wasn’t the best idea, and wasn’t morally or politically justified — why, you’re a conspiracy theorist. “You don’t believe there even was a coronavirus,” they’ll claim, even though you obviously believe there was. You’re only saying that 100 percent of human activity shouldn’t end because of it.

This is what happens when you allow the inmates to take over the asylum. The inmates are the sociopaths and psychopaths who dominate our media, academic and corporate worlds. For decades, they have been gradually taking over. Now the masks are off, even as they order us to permanently put our masks on. These creepy, evil collectivists care for nothing other than power and money — at any cost. These inmates are turning our once free, prosperous and fairly rational society into a literal asylum.

It will take unblinking courage, strength, critical thinking and confidence to fight back.—Michael J. Hurd