Category Archives: Politics

NULLIFY the Biden Regime

Posted on by
Reply

“That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact [federal Constitution], to which the states are parties…. that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

— The Virginia Resolution, by James Madison, arguing for state and local nullification of federal law when federal law is unconstitutional.

Is This What You Had In Mind, America?

Posted on by
Reply

Is this what you had in mind, America? Mass shootings one after another… Government paralyzed, not by disagreements, but by hate… The ongoing loss of constitutional rights… Inflation… Stagnation… Despondency, especially among the young… Millions caught in a seemingly unbreakable cycle of poverty.

Is this what you had in mind, America, when you said God had no place in public schools, or when you made local movie theaters a cesspool of illicit sex and explicit satanism? Was this the intent when you made the local mall something like a carnival fun house with music and imagery from the pit of hell?

You made the military a giant guinea pig for social experimentation, turned military academies into institutions of wokeness that hate fundamental American values, and you promoted the most politically correct into the highest positions of authority. Even though the rank and file of your military remains the best in the world, your leaders fail them, as in Afghanistan.

Through abortion, you taught the young that human life has no value, and you wonder why suicide is the leading cause of death among people between the ages of 10 and 34 — or why 18-year-olds shoot up schools and supermarkets. In school, you turned sex education into an opportunity to promote sexual perversions of all kinds. And you wonder why one in five Americans is mentally ill. You shred families. You disparage the idea of that children need fathers and mothers, and you can’t figure out why they bully and cheat and turn to violence.

You made your music all about sin and sensuality — degrading rather than uplifting. You made leaders out of the loudest, least thoughtful among us. You made a god out of popularity on social media. You replaced statesmanship with the poison-pal politics of hate. You allowed the media to become your thought shepherds rather than your factfinders.

And what about you, Church? Is this what you had in mind?

Did you plan to become weak and ineffective? When you traded in Bible-infused messages with pop psychology, is this what you had in mind? Is that what you wanted when you made entertaining children the priority over teaching them?

God says, “Look to Me,” but you look instead to political saviors. In fact, you look to man first in all things, leaving God as a last resort. And why not? After all, you teach that the great God, Creator of all things, is nothing more than a friendly little Pal whose primary purpose is to help you feel good about yourself.

Is this what you had in mind, Church, when you chose to embrace the world’s definitions of prosperity and blessing rather than God’s — or chose a saccharine-sweet façade instead of the glorious reality of the omnipotent God? Is this what you had in mind when you chose to embrace evil, rather than to overcome evil with good — or when you chose cheap virtue signaling over faithful evangelism?

When you threw away reverence, did you have this in mind? You tried to make church doctrine all things to all people. You wanted to be liked and not seen as peculiar. But by watering down the Gospel, you laid your own children on Moloch’s altar.

A remnant remains — lit from within by the glowing fires of the Holy Spirit. But to a stunning extent, the Church is drowning in worldliness.

When the people of earth need more than ever for the Church to be distinct, it has emulated the world so long and with such ardor, that people have a hard time telling one from the other. But God still says, “Come out from among them, and be ye separate”! (2 Corinthians 6:17, KJV)

Hal Lindsey

Is This January 6 Show Trial Even Real Life?

Posted on by
Reply

Tucker Carlson’s Thursday night show was a special feature on the January 6 war crimes trial

I have mostly stopped following the whole January 6 drama. It’s just too much, and I just don’t care.

But now they are doing the actual hearings, which appear to be some kind of Nuremberg-style war crimes trial against Americans who protested the 2020 election. If you want to be more politically correct in your analysis, you could call it a “Soviet-style show trial,” but I think that would be less accurate. The Soviets built a system of laws designed to facilitate show trials, whereas Nuremberg was a drastic and totally unprecedented departure from Western norms of jurisprudence. This January 6 circus show is a drastic departure from the established laws of this country, and appears to be setting the standard for a new kind of legal system.

So, what exactly is going on here?

For some background, here is what Wikipedia has to say about January 6:

I think that pretty much sums it up.

But that isn’t enough for those in the government. They are continuing to claim that the January 6 protest was an “insurrection,” despite the fact that no one had guns.

For a bit of context, while this is the number one story in America, several other things are happening:

  • We are the closest we’ve ever been to a nuclear war in all of history
  • Inflation is increasing so rapidly that it is wrecking the ability of even well-off people to live normal lives
  • We’re headed straight toward some kind of monumental economic crisis
  • Kids are being turned into trannies on purpose by government schools
  • Crime has skyrocketed to the point where it is virtually impossible to live a normal life in any major urban center

The Sanhedrin said – and the media agreed – that “our democracy is at risk.” I don’t really understand what that means when they say it, but as a statement in a vacuum, it’s obviously true. I’m not a huge fan of democracy – at all – but it’s the system we’ve had for 150 years or so now, and it’s a system that at the very least will assure some rights of the people, even while it causes severe social degradation and corruption.

This system of democracy is now being phased out in favor of an open authoritarian system. By giving these new powers to the Congress, which effectively allows the legislative branch to take on executive powers, we’re fundamentally altering the entire structure of the government.

This is not a joke – the FBI is rounding people up for refusing to participate in this scam. Congress doesn’t have the power to order the FBI to round people up, but they’re just doing it anyway. When the FBI rounds you up, it has been, up until now, for the purpose of putting you before the judicial branch of government – not the Congress. There are various loopholes and technicalities being exploited here of course, but we are seeing the final result now, which is this Nuremberg thing. This has never happened before in American history.

You can talk about Ray Epps and the pipe bombs and the police opening the doors and the secret security camera footage – but the point is, none of that is required to be entered into the record here, because this is not a real court. It is a fake court, with a Congressional committee pretending to be a court, and it nullifies the concept of separation of powers, which if you graduated third grade, you know is the basis of our government’s structure.

So beyond simply destroying democracy, they are going back further, and wrecking the Constitutional foundation of the US government.

From this point forward, everything is going to be very different. Obviously, we’ve been seeing the erosion of all of the systems of government for a long time now, and it’s been speeding up, but this January 6 Sanhedrin is a horse of a different color.

The implications of this are that the government is in the process of solidifying total power, where they are just able to do anything they want. This obviously isn’t about January 6 – no one cares about that, including the people conducting this farce. This is about completely destroying the remnants of a civilized system of law and order.

It’s hard to believe this is even real life. It feels, on some level, like I am living in some kind of surreal false reality.

Liz Cheney should have a sign over her head reading: “Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here.”

From here on out, things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.

We’re going as far south as south goes.

Don’t Get Rid of Guns. Get Rid of the GOVERNMENT.

Posted on by
1

Gun owners: JUST IGNORE any gun control legislation. Our rulers are EVIL and LAWLESS.

******************

Secure the schools? Better idea: DEFUND THE SCHOOLS. Private schools are not killing fields; only government-run schools are.

******************

President Joe Biden’s approval rating with Hispanic Americans has plummeted to just 24 percent, a new Quinnipiac Poll finds.
So what? So long as we have subjective mail-in voting and a media so dishonest it would make the Soviets and the Maoists blush, we will not have any change.

None of us can do anything about election fraud. But millions of us do have the power TO IGNORE THE WILL OF THIS GOVERNMENT. Just ignore them. Bring the whole rotten system down by refusing to participate in it.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Capitalism and The Swedish Welfare State

Posted on by
Reply

As Ayn Rand observed, a compromise between two opposite principles – such as between freedom and government controls in a welfare state – is never sustainable,

Prompted by my recent visit to Finland, I listened to a lecture about the country’s challenges in the new world economy. It was delivered by the controversial banker and economist Björn Wahlroos at Aalto University Business School, my alma mater. (The lecture is available on YouTube, with English subtitles promised soon. Wahlroos’ talk starts at minute 37. Most comments about Sweden start about minute 65).

Dr. Wahlroos is a controversial figure in Finland, a country committed to the egalitarian welfare state, because he has been a provocative proponent of free markets and a critic of the welfare state. In this lecture, however, he argued that it is possible to have both the welfare state and market freedom if a country approaches them “sensibly.”

Wahlroos criticized the Finnish government for the zero GDP growth rate in the last 13 years and attributed it to the government’s “insensible” approach to growing the welfare state while failing to facilitate economic growth through market mechanisms. He cited Sweden as a model, where the modest annual GDP growth of 2% in the same period has financed welfare spending and avoided accumulating government debt.

In a 10-year period from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, Sweden’s social democratic government recognized the unsustainability of the ever-ballooning welfare state and set to restructure it (without giving it up). According to Dr. Wahlroos, Sweden did this primarily by lowering taxes and by reforming labor laws. It abolished the wealth tax for its wealthiest citizens in 1995 and the inheritance and gift taxes for everybody about ten years later. It also increased the tax deduction for employment income and changed labor laws, which encouraged those on welfare to go to work. Finally, in 2020 the government introduced a flat state income tax of 20%.

For such improvements of people’s economic freedom, Wahlroos deservedly praised Sweden. However, his endorsement of the Swedish welfare state model which permits modest economic growth by slightly expanding economic freedom, is indefensible. He argued that Sweden (where he now lives) represents a middle ground (a compromise) between the Asian tigers (such as Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan) and Venezuela. Therefore, it is “a sensible home for industry and also a tolerable home for capitalists.”

Dr. Wahlroos’ argument is indefensible because a compromise between two opposite principles – such as between freedom and government controls in a welfare state – is never sustainable, as Ayn Rand has observed.

Why? Because a system based on opposite principles is unstable and always moving toward either direction. There is no “sensible” middle to which the proponents of the principles can agree in the long term.

A welfare state based on a mixed economy, is founded on the idea that society – all its members collectively – must take care of everyone’s needs. In a welfare state, those who have more needs must be taken care of by those who are more productive and therefore can afford to help.

This principle of “to each according to his needs and from each according to his ability” is in a fundamental conflict with the opposite principle that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests. The latter includes trading with others and not being forced (through taxation and regulation) to give away the wealth they have produced so that the government can satisfy others’ needs.

The welfare state with lower taxes that incentivize production of goods and services and thereby wealth creation may be tolerable to some capitalists, as Wahlroos argued. In a world that consists mainly of welfare states of varying degrees and dictatorships of various stripes, this may be understandable.

However, why should capitalists – those who accumulate wealth by producing and invest it in further production and wealth creation – want to compromise and merely have “tolerable” conditions for production?

They do so because they have embraced the welfare state as an ideal. They have accepted that it is their duty to fulfill the needs of others by enabling the welfare state. But if the capitalists and the producers really wanted to increase everyone’s prosperity and wellbeing, they should reject this wrong ideal. Instead, they should embrace true capitalism: the principles of individual freedom and free trade. It is only such a system that can maximize and sustain economic growth and wealth creation, and therefore, human wellbeing.

The evidence, both historic and current, shows clearly that freedom leads to the greatest prosperity and wellbeing for all, and that government controls hinder them. If human flourishing is the goal, the compromise between the principles of individual freedom and the government control that is the welfare state should not be tolerated or embraced.

Jaana Woiceshyn

Jaana Woiceshyn teaches business ethics and competitive strategy at the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada. How to Be Profitable and Moral” is her first solo-authored book. Visit her website at profitableandmoral.com.

The 21st Century Version of “Let Them Eat Cake”

Posted on by
Reply

Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) said that gas prices “didn’t matter” to her because she drives an electric vehicle while millions of Americans feel the financial burden of record-high gas prices.

“On the issue of gas prices, after waiting for a long time to have enough chips in this country to finally get my electric vehicle, I got it and drove it from Michigan to here this last weekend and went by every single gas station and it didn’t matter how high it was,” Stabenow said.
It’s the modern equivalent of “Let them eat cake.”

So when do we get to dethrone them?

This was supposed to be the United States of America. Just look at us.

As Voltaire once said, “It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.”

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Today’s Tyrants Don’t Want Success; They Want YOU to FAIL

Posted on by
Reply

“They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.”

— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged