So Congress passed a "stimulus" bill that gives $600 to individuals.
Just imagine that due to government actions, your business that you poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into, went belly up and the government says: "Here's $600. Thanks for the ride."
Mind you, it wasn't the US Congress that killed off a whole lot of businesses so really it wasn't the US Congress' responsibility to pay. The state governors are responsible. And they were and are enabled by power hungry busy bodies who, in NYS, deemed to tell people they couldn't use the toilets because they were indoors.
Imagine. Your elected official signing off on telling you WHERE and WHEN YOU CAN SH!T.
Yes, I'm yelling.
There was nobody in the room when whoever mentioned this who said "No."
Just think on that. The people running the show actually thought that stopping you from relieving yourself where necessary was something they do and should have power to decide (aside from public relief, which I hear is quite legal in San Francisco).
Anyway, the point here is about that $600. Like the $1200 and whatever else was "given" before (actually stolen from future tax payers). Unless you were someone who took and will take that money and invested it, the "stimulus" was actually a direct injection of money to:
1) MasterCard, Visa, Discover, etc.
Often people used the money to pay down debts. Debts that are paid, often with interest are profits for the credit card companies.
2) Amazon, FedEx, UPS, etc,
Amazon has made TONS of money off the lockdowns. As small local businesses have cratered people have been forced to use Amazon to get stuff (that includes EBAY). You'd have to be blind to not notice all the Amazon trucks running all over the place since March.
3) Walmart, Target, etc.
Large chain discount stores have made out like Amazon. Again, their competition were locked out of the economy by the same government that's saying: "Here's $600. Thanks for the ride".
4) China. Yeah, China. If you've been paying attention you know that the vast majority of goods are "made in China". Very little is made in the US anymore. So ultimately wherever US persons ended up shopping for non-food items, that money, more likely than not, went to a Chinese firm (which also means the Chinese government).
What you have here is the greatest wealth transfer in US history including theft from unborn future tax payers. And you think Congress has accomplished something.
Supposedly, in academia, very smart people ask a question. How many of x? What are the causes of Y? Etc. Then they make a hypothesis. We think x happens because of A. Then they test the hypothesis. Does the evidence support the hypothesis? If not, the hypothesis is discarded and a new one is made based on the evidence. Then they test again.
In math you have proofs. Can we find x? Here's how you do it. If it results in finding X every time then we know the formula is valid. If it fails to find X in any case then the formula is invalid.
Then we have fake academia in which these "very smart people" make unfalsifiable hypotheses. That is, they declare that the cause of a phenomenon IS Z and cannot be anything other than Z. Furthermore any other possible cause IS ALSO the result of Z and therefore Z is the cause.
The most popular, pernicious and damaging of these is "systemic racism" also known as "Institutional Racism." With this phenomenon, since the institution allegedly [my word] controls and determines the behaviour of everyone in it, any and every explanation is subsumed by it. That is; the victim of systemic racism has no agency. No responsibility. Whatever ails him is directly the result of Institutional Racism. On the flip side all non-victims (the racists) are de-facto perpetrators of Institutional Racism. To quote The Matrix, if you are not one of us you are one of them.
Those in the designated victim class who refuse to see and/or operate as victims, instead of being seen as evidence that the hypothesis is unsupported are instead identified as oppressor adjacent. That is, their refusal to play the victim gives cover to the oppressor class by making excuses for their behavior.
This neat packaging makes life easy for the new breed of academic. One doesn't have to prove anything. You don't need actual evidence. Instead just show the assigned victim class being "victimized" and you're done. So with this we come to the article of the day.
Sounds pretty bad. Why are all these black "children" being shot by police? I suggested that at no point in the article would we find anything about what these black children were doing when shot by police. Of course they put Tamir Rice on the page. Why? Propaganda. All the shootings must be of kids with toy guns being rushed up on by police with itchy trigger fingers!
So being the thorough person that I am, I went to the paper:
The piece is paywalled so you'll need to be on a library network to get to it. So lets start with this part:
In this cross-sectional study, we used data from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting
System (WISQARS). WISQARS collects data from death certificates compiled
by the National Center for Health Statistics. This study included
adolescents aged 12 to 17 years who died of firearm injury from legal
intervention (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision code Y35) from 2003 to 2018.1 We used 17 years as the upper age limit to prevent inclusion of law enforcement who were killed on or off duty.
So children is anyone under the legal age of consent. And note the "we don't want to include police killed on or off duty". Why would a police officer be SHOT and killed by children who pose no threat to them?
In other words this academic paper doesn't want to admit that these children, at least some of them, pose deadly threats to adult police officers. Isn't this a problem?
During the 16-year study period, 140 adolescents died by legal
intervention, and of those deaths, 131 (92.9%) involved firearms. The
average annual mortality rate was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.27–0.38) per 1 000 000
adolescents. The majority were boys (93.18%) with a mean age of 15.94
(±1.80) years (Table 1).
Seems the article could and should be about how boys are "disproportionately" killed by police but who cares about the boys. But m ore relevant is, why are boys so "over-represented"? Could it be that boys engage in more violent criminal behavior that warrant aggressive police responses than girls do? And; if that is the case wouldn't the explanation for the other factor be "more violent criminal behavior"? No?
Institutional Racism. Nothing else to see here folks.
Maybe it's the cities.
No one wants to discuss the urbanization of violence? No?
So here's their "disparate impact" chart.
Clearly these blacks are victims of police. Look at the chart.
What do these very smart people have to say?
"Although this study does not address the underlying causes of these
disparities, evidence suggests a role for structural racism as well as
explicit and implicit bias among police officers.8
A recent report suggests a victim’s race may be associated with use of
police force. In addition, the authors of this report also found that
white officers were more likely to use firearms in minority
neighborhoods.9
Further research is needed to address underlying causes and develop
evidence-based interventions to reduce police shootings, especially
among adolescents of color."
They didn't address underlying causes (too much work and foils the narrative) but we're going to make claims about "structural racism" and "implicit bias" among police. Not that we have any actual evidence of such things but because we have the unfalsifiable hypothesis on our side we don't need any actual evidence.
Look at that. 70% of murder and non-negligent manslaughter victims, suspects and arrestees are black in NYC.
So if blacks (mostly...overwhelmingly) males are 7x more likely to be suspects AND VICTIMS of murder (not by police) than it stands to reason that when the police get involved nearly 7x of those shot will be black.
Of course that in "structural racism" because all these murderers just wanted a loaf of bread to feed their families. Everybody knows that.
And just for "fun" here's the shooting incidents. Victims, suspect and arrestees. 80% black in NYC.
Nothing to see here. Not a viable explanation. No reason to look at the behaviors of black males [in cities] lets blame white folks and implicit bias like say the bias against being shot.
So this isn't an exercise in bashing on black folks. However; we cannot walk around blaming other people for our current issues. Ain't none of us had to escape slavery and get north. None of us had to sit at the back of the bus (well 95% of us). The vast majority of us have never seen a whites only sign for public facilities. None of us have been denied access to a school that *we can afford to send our children to*. Many of us HAVE had our resume's tossed in the trash or have been eliminated from potential employment in part due to people not wanting to deal with our "racism" drama.
So back to the article. What this "academic paper" really is is an opinion piece posing as scholarship. It should have never been accepted much less published since it makes conclusions wholly unsupported by the provided evidence. It would be like publishing an article that said 2+2=5 and saying that the reason it is true is because 5 is greater than 2.
Now some of you are saying: Yeah, but the article was about children. How do we know these stats hold for children? Good question. I partially dealt with that back in 2013:
Looking at the age data
we see the that for African-American women between the ages of 15 and
24, homicide is the second leading cause of death. After age 24 homicide
drops to the 4th, then 7th and then drops off the chart.
For black males, Homicide is the second leading cause of death for 10-14 year olds.
10 to 14 years of age.
Homicide is the number one cause of death of African-American males between the age of 15 -34.
15 to 34.
So unless you are on some very powerful opiates, you'll have to realize that all of these "homicides" are not police shootings. Consider:
White males between the ages of 15 and 19 have homicide as the number 3 cause of death (compared to number one for black males)
White males between the ages of 20 -24 have homicide as the number 3 cause of death (compared to number one for black males).
White males between the ages of 25 and 34 have homicide as the number 5
cause of death (compared to number one for black males).
Homicide drops to number 6 and then off the charts for the remaining age groups.
Clearly black minors are engaging in a lot of violent criminal behavior relative to their white counterparts.
But of course "structural racism" is a much better explanation. Because it's white people's fault why black children are engaging in homicidal behavior. The white man is GOD and affects all things.
The relevant part is at time 18:30 but the entire video is worth watching. But this screenshot below should be the basis of the most important question.
If Ivermectin reduces viral load by 98% why do we need a vaccine? And If Ivermectin, cheap and already in use worldwide (like HCQ) only needs one dose to achieve it's results, why are we still doing masks rather than making sure all pharmacies have it (like the sugggested Wuhan Pack) so that people can get it if they think they have been exposed?
In other words why is the government insisting on putting stuff on our bodies, trying to inject stuff into our bodies and destroying our businesses and lives rather than making known treatments (and preventative measures that are known to be effective that do not involve muzzles) available?
So the thing driving the government response to COVID is the PCR tests. Essentially anyone who pops positive for COVID is assumed to be infectious.
Let me repeat that. Any and every positive test result is assumed to have found an infectious individual. Entire state travel rules are based on this premise. Many people have pointed out that such assumptions are completely unfounded. Such persons have been accused of spreading disinformation and banned off certain platforms. But now they are vindicated.
A promising Australian candidate for a coronavirus vaccine has been
abandoned after trial participants returned false HIV positive results.
Australia
had previously agreed to buy 51 million doses of the vaccine being
developed by Australian firm CSL and the University of Queensland (UQ).
The government said orders of other vaccines would now fill the shortfall.
CSL and UQ stressed that the positive results were false - meaning trial participants' health was not at risk.
And in case the article disappears or is altered, because such things have been happening with alarming frequency:
So what happened here? Another article has the details that are very relevant here:
The UQ vaccine candidate used a protein
and adjuvant platform, containing the COVID-19 spike protein and a
"molecular clamp". A small component is derived from the human
immunodeficiency virus, known as HIV, that is not able to infect people
or replicate.
A
source with knowledge of the clinical results said although the HIV
protein fragment posed "absolutely no health risk to people", they had
identified that some trial participants who received the vaccine
produced a partial antibody response to it. [my underlines]
So lets understand. People have fragments of the HIV virus (technically from the protein surrounding the virus) floating around in them and an HIV test picks it up and the person is thought to be infected with HIV when in fact they are NOT. That is, evidence of HIV protein doesn't mean infectious individual.
Get it?
Many people who have HAD COVID due to being exposed at some point and never got sick (or had extremely mild symptoms) have the fragments floating about. If they have a test they can come up positive even though they are not infectious. Even more important, they could already be immune, in that their immune system recognizes the virus due to previous coronavirus exposure and dealt with the virus and they too can pop up positive even though they are not infectious.
So to recap; governments worldwide are treating PCR positive (often after many many many amplifications) as proof of infectiousness (or assumed infectiousness) and often imprisoning people on that basis, even though it is known that such positives do not prove infectiousness which is the most important thing.
So a family was kicked off an airplane because their two year old wouldn't wear a mask. Firstly; that two year old is smarter than most.
"Today, we were asked to leave the plane after it had rolled out, and they had to bring it back to the gate, because our 2 year old daughter would not "comply" and keep her mask on," passenger Eliz Orban said on Instagram. "And what blows my mind even more is that the WHO recommends against face masks for kids under the age of 5. AGAINST. And this decision was "based on expert opinion on childhood developmental milestones, challenges with mask compliance, and the autonomy required to wear a mask properly."
So a lot of people are "outraged" about what happened. Let me make this clear. If you are really outraged, then bankrupt United Airlines. You may be unable to do anything about these dumb mask rules but you certainly do not have to fly on an airplane for just about any reason. I personally do not fly, generally for one reason: the security theatre. I must be searched and my stuff searched because the US is too stupid to limit who is allowed into the country. No thanks. Besides, I did a lot of international travel when I was younger.
Simply put, you should drive to wherever it is you are going and if you cannot (or don't want to) then do not go. And make it clear to the car rental agency (assuming you're not driving your own vehicle) that your doing this in protest against the "rules'.
Once the airlines start failing because they cannot get passengers, after all the government cannot force you to take a plane flight, then they will beg to have the "rules" changed. However; if you insist on handing money to these airline companies, even as they force you to gag your children (and you volunteer to gag yourself), then you deserve every single bit of outrageous behavior you get.
So we had a scientifically illiterate congressperson say that the reason why black people have had higher incidents of death by Wuhan is because of "systemic/structural racism" which includes things like food deserts. Of course since no one is allowed to question these silly people because it would be both "racist" and "sexist" ,such misinformation is allowed to continue to spread and be treated as fact. Worse, more people fall ill and die unnecessarily. But these are the "leadership" that the vast majority of black people elected and or support so at this point I'm strongly inclined to say you get exactly what you deserve. That said, below is the actual science:
So what we see here is that blacks have 10x the rate of vitamin D deficiency as whites. Why? Melanin blocks UV radiation which is necessary to produce vitamin D (which is actually a hormone). In Africa where black people evolved to live, this isn't an issue given the strong direct sunlight that falls ALL YEAR. However; black people living above the 35 parallel, which is all of Europe and the northern half of North America, late fall through late Spring, results in inadequate sunlight (specifically UV radiation). This is even true for white people. However; since white people don't have UV blocking melanin, they can produce more during these times than black people, even if it is still deficient. This in addition to foods can offset the temporary vitamin D deficiency though not completely.
Due to these seasonal issues, respiratory viruses have "a good time" during the winter months and essentially fall off a cliff during the summer months. This is why you see waves of increasing influenza type illnesses and deaths during the winter time.
Black people living in these areas of the world are even MORE susceptible so this is not strange and it certainly isn't so systemic or structural racism.
So this last chart shows that, as expected, unfortunately, black people, having high levels of D deficiency are more affected by Wuhan. Of course the advice given by the politicians and "experts" to "stay indoors" was the WORST advice to give to people who need to be exposed to the sun the most. But where were the black professionals when these edicts were handed down? I didn't see or hear them. They all parroted the same mask, lockdowns, we need a vaccine and RACISM BS like everyone else.
People like me who has consistently presented the science have been pushed aside, silenced, censored, called "anti-vaxxers" and the like because we see the misinformation, we see the plotting and calling it what it is while giving YOU the power to help yourself.
Side note, since it is Asians, which in the US means Chinese, Japanese, etc, are near the bottom of the "dying of COVID" list, why are Blacks being compared to whites? Wouldn't it be better to compare to the group identified with the lowest deaths? Also in the UK "Asian" actually refers to Pakistanis and Indians many of whom are very dark skinned and. have the same issues with UV radiation as Africans and similar Wuhan outcomes.
" I can see the court asking how PA law disenfranchised Texas voters. PA voters, maybe, but that would go to standing."
And that is how it ended for them. If you read SCOTUS decisions you always[?] see a part that discusses whether the party has standing and whether the court has jurisdiction and THEN the case. Even if the case is solid with evidence, if the party has no standing, then the case doesn't proceed.
As I've said for years; when you're dealing with legal issues, you have to put aside your own prejudices and look at how the process works. Understanding the process means that you'll be prepared for or at least understand likely outcomes that don't fit your wishes.
The state of Pennsylvania replied to the Texas suit. Obviously they think it's junk. I agree with some of the arguments PA made. For example the part where Texas says that the odds of ballots going to Biden, putting him over the top were some astronomically low percentage is speculation. That something is highly unlikely to happen doesn't mean it cannot and importantly, has not happened. Essentially, if there is any expectation of an event happening, it will happen at some point in time. You just need enough time.
But something else struck me:
Fifth, there was no state law violation when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court temporarily modifiedthe deadline for the receipt of mail-in and absentee ballots, because state constitutional law required it.SeePa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345, 369-72 (Pa. 2020). Under this Court’s jurisprudence, nothing in the Elections Clause of Article I “instructs, nor has this Court ever held, that a state legislature may pre-scribe regulations on the time, place, and manner of holding federal elections in defiance of provisions of the State’s constitution.” Arizona State Legislature v. Ari-zona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 817-18 (2015)(AIRC).The same is true for the Elector Clause in Article II. [ my underlines]
The underlined portion "the Pennsylvania Supreme Court temporarily" is at the heart of Texas' claim against PA (and I assume, the other states). Texas is saying that the constitution gives power explicitly to the legislature. So Pa has admitted to the Texas claim. Their rebut is that the PA constitution allows such behavior. BUT they cite a recent, as in this year, decision. Part of Texas' argument is that such lawsuits and court decisions were used as cover to make changes that the parties otherwise had no authority to make.
So the way I see it, if SCOTUS takes up this case they would have to address the lower court ruling that PA is using here as well as the broader constitutional claim. Either way, that PA admitted to part of the claim, IMO, makes this case more likely to be taken up.
So yesterday I discussed the new Texas suit which has been joined by just about every red state in the US. Of all the states that have been sued, Pennsylvania may be the only one with a viable out. Apparently last October, their legislature passed what is called "Act 77" Which made significant changes to mail in voting in that state.
Two items that caught my attention were:
15 more days to register to vote The deadline to register to vote is extended to 15 days from 30 days before an election. Cutting the current deadline by half enables more people to participate in elections. The new more flexible and voter friendly deadlines provide more time to register to vote than 24 other states.
Extends mail-in and absentee submission deadlines Voters can submit mail-in and absentee ballots until 8:00 p.m. on election day. The current deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before an election, which is the most restrictive in the country. Pennsylvanians submitted 195,378 absentee ballots in 2018, but 8,162 – more than four percent – missed the deadline and were rejected. The national average is only two percent.
I don't currently know whether these changes cover the Texas claims as I currently don't have time to both read the act or the suit in their entirety. If Act 77 covers the changes made by PA then that state will likely be removed from the suit by SCOTUS (at the very least). I am unaware of other states with other such legislation. I would *assume* that Texas (and the other states) have looked into this. For all I know they already took Act 77 into consideration.
I'll admit it. I didn't see that coming. Not at all. And I dismissed it at first because I didn't think they would pass "standing". That is I didn't think that they had grounds to bring the suit because I didn't think they could show that they had been injured by other states. While that may still be decided (I don't think the word 'determined' is appropriate here because determined implies a statement of fact while decided can happen whether something is factual or not. To make this more clear, we have mentally defective people running around insisting that they are the opposite sex than they actually are (and want to force you to play along). This is a "decision". It has no basis in fact but it has been "decided" by that person. However, if you took a look at their genes you could *determine* that they are in fact male or female and if adults, men or women because that's what we call adult human males and females respectively.
Bringing us back to the case, Once I listened to some of the commentaries I understood where Texas believes it has standing and how it thinks it has been injured. Below is a good video (long) on the matter.
The colloquially-named Electoral College arises from Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, which state that:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.[My underlines]
The relevant part is the part I underlined. As I discussed in my Ballot or Bullet post of a few days ago, these changes to election policies were in direct violation of law. Period. Full stop. The US Constitution clearly gives the power to the state legislatures. Not the governors. Not the state courts and not the secretary of state. None of these people have the power to change how the election (which is for electors) in on their own or in cahoots with each other.
What I expect from these states is some argument about Covid-19 and the state of emergency. This is also why I posted on the abuse of emergency declarations a few days ago. Governors have been abusing this pandemic for months without any repercussions save for a recent SCOTUS decision against Cuomo.
I have no idea how this will turn out. As I have said there is a lot of political pressure on SCOTUS.
Also, the 14th Amendment is in play here.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So Texas is saying that it's citizens were denied due process protections because they voted under a constitutional regime while other citizens (in the states being sued) did not. I can see the court asking how PA law disenfranchised Texas voters. PA voters, maybe, but that would go to standing. I think the 14th Amendment claims would work if combined with what is referred to as the Guarantee Clause
This means, that the laws are passed by the legislatures, not the executive or his or her underlings.
Thus, the Guarantee Clause imposes limitations on the type of government a state may have. The Clause requires the United States to prevent any state from imposing rule by monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or permanent military rule, even through majority vote. Instead, governing by electoral processes is constitutionally required.
So neither the people, NOR THE LEGISLATURES can vote the executive powers to rule by decree.
This brings us back to the case. Election laws were changed on the whims of governors and/or their underlings in clear violation of the constitutional requirement that they be done by the legislature.
If this is decided against by SCOTUS by either a refusal to hear or an actual ruling, it should be very interesting.
Withdrawal The authors have withdrawn this manuscript
because there are increased rates of SARS- CoV-2 cases in the areas that
we originally analyzed in this study. New analyses in the context of
the third surge in the United States are therefore needed and will be
undertaken directly in conjunction with the creators of the
publicly-available databases on cases, hospitalizations, testing rates.
Etc.
Yes, this is science. You have a hypothesis, in this case "mask mandated decreased hospitalizations" and then you check the data and if the data says "no, no it doesn't", then you stop making the claim.
So again, to help those who believe the MSM:
Masks, other than N95 masks, properly worn as in completely sealing the mouth, DO. Not. Work.
Authors of studies have clearly stated that they CANNOT uncouple the habits that mask wearers have from the actual mask usage. That behavior consists of social distancing and hand washing. Furthermore we have repeated reports of people who [claim] to have worn masks religiously and STILL end up infected. AND I've already discussed the simple physics of airflow. But for those who haven't figured it out, if you have one of this disposable surgeon masks, you can do an experiment:
1) with the mask off, put your hand about a fist space away from your mouth. Blow at the hand. Note the "breeze" that passes around your hand.
2) put your surgical mask on.
3) Put your hand the same distance and blow again. Did you feel anything. No? Well do you think they air simply STOPPED? Now note, where did you feel the "breeze" of your breath? Did it blow up in your eyes? Did you feel it on your cheeks? Yes? Well what goes out, also comes in. Congrats you've been infected. Have a nice day.
I would bet large sums of money that it came to a complete shock to many, if not most Americans that the state was a silent, veto holding partner in their business. They were told "2 weeks to flatten the curve" to months upon months of the government shutting down businesses and even arguing in court that citizens have no right to make a living.
It turned out that all those licenses that the state created to "protect the consumer" were actually business partnership agreements. All over the country, the state would run up on you if you violated the governors edicts, referred to as "Emergeny orders", and fine you excessively for violating the new "laws". If it's "egregious" enough, arrests happen. Your crime will be doing exactly what it was you were doing prior to March 2020 with willing customers.
Up until March 2020, a governor's emergency powers were seen as limited in scope. A bad storm was on the way, declare an emergency, ASK people to stay indoors, perhaps ASK people to evacuate. You'll notice I emphasize "ask". This is because even if they ASK you to stay indoors, you couldn't actually be arrested for it. Much less fined. Similarly they could ASK you to evacuate a location that's about to be hit by a bad storm, but you the citizen could choose to remain in your home. You may not get any emergency services, but that's a risk YOU could take. In the end, you are responsible for your life. No one has to risk their life due to your decision. But these emergencies the time frame was always limited and the powers limited.
But up jumped COVID and suddenly this idea of limited power went out the window. Governors declared whatever it is they wanted and justified it by saying "science" and "public health". No such exceptions are listed in the sovereign legal document. But having seen the wonders of "emergency powers" governors have reveled in their new power and the MSM is helping out.
Why should he officially declare it one?
Some environmentalists are pushing the president-elect to proclaim
global warming a national emergency, giving him more power to take
executive actions to tackle it.
Oh. "Executive actions".
See, during the last 4 years under Trump, "executive action" was Hitler Nazism come to life. Now with a Biden presidency in sight, "executive action" is cool again. Never mind that the JOB of the executive is to execute the laws passed by the duly elected representatives.
“It actually gives the president more power.”
But such a unilateral move may cut too much against Biden's inclinations to try to strike deals across the aisle.
Don't want to bother with the pesky congress? Emergency!
Oh, and we're good with unilateralism now?
I gotta hand it to the Left, even when what they do is clear rank hypocrisy, they go full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes!
Using emergency authority, Biden may be able to funnel military money to
the construction of renewable energy projects, reinstate a ban on
exporting oil and lob trade penalties on countries such as Brazil for
permitting the destruction of the Amazon.
Remember when Trump wanted to use military money to fund CONSTRUCTION?
Yes, Malcolm X quote. Be certain that the reference is only applicable to black folks or the time in which Malcolm lived. It is a long-standing idea that spans generations and people.
I haven't commented on the election results for a number of reasons. Primarily I did not care for, or think it was constitutional, to have mass mail-in balloting for the federal election. Firstly because the US Constitution defines election day, not election days, or weeks or month. Secondly, because mail-in balloting is ripe for fraud. Mass mail-in balloting is ripe for mass fraud. Mass mail-in balloting along with no identity verification is ripe for MASSIVE fraud. Then you have issues like the destruction of ballot drop boxes, of ballots being dumped by mail carriers. All of which has happened.
Therefore my position on voting has been:
1) Voter ID required. No exceptions.
2) Election day should be from 12AM to 11:59PM of the constitutionally determined day. Period. Cities with large populations should have excessive amounts of locations to vote to keep lines to a minimum. I don't care if the places are empty for 23 of the 24 hours.
3) Election day should be a federal holiday for all people, even if that means the govt pays that day's wages (perhaps in the form of tax rebates). That way there are no excuses for those who wish to vote.
But we don't have that system. So we have what happened last November. I already wrote my immediate reaction to it but I'm going to expand a little bit on it.
One of the reasons I haven't said much is because there were too many rumors and such going about. I don't want to present misinformation and I'm not looking for clicks so no need to rush. Also as is my practice, when it comes to legal issues I'm more concerned with what would stand up in court vs. what would stand up in the court of opinion (which has a far lower threshold).
Much of what I read and heard was conjecture or could be dismissed as circumstantial evidence. As much as think affidavits are valid, what we are talking about here is determining the presidential election. One of the reasons is because a witness may actually have witnessed something but completely misunderstood what they saw. So they weren't lying, they just were mistaken.
I don't see, particularly after Bush-Gore, a court nullifying an election based on testimony that has no hard evidence to support it. As much as we'd like to think that the courts are not influenced by politics, that is not the case and it certainly is not the case when justices have images of rioting Antifa in their heads. Bush-Gore was one state. Can you imagine having to rule to nullify or change the outcome of multiple states? That's a lot of pressure.
So the issue is, is there actual evidence of fraud? I think so. First is the infamous F curve in Wisconsin.
The AP (and other MSM) have said that this curve is not indicative of fraud. Why? Because the absentee ballots is what did it.
Sorry. Not buying. We'll get to absentee ballots and ballots in general later. No curve works like that. So everyone who voted absentee voted for Biden? EVERYONE? And just enough of the votes were enough to put Biden over the top?
As I've written before, as someone who gambles, I know about variance. I've seen, and stomached big swings. They happen. But if I was looking at a graph of my results and saw that vertical line. I would be calling up the relevant gaming commission and asking for an audit. Of course in an election, unlike gambling, you don't lose counts. A vote is a vote so the curve always goes up. But that vertical line? That magically puts Biden on top and then continues on "normally"? No. Sorry.
But this is circumstantial. If we were in court a fair jury could reasonably conclude that the absentee ballot explanation is valid. So we then have to turn our attention to these absentee ballots.
This brings us to the Georgia video
I saved a copy of this video on the chance that it disappears. The above is a shortened version of the video. The question here for this video is that the observers were told that the counting was halted. They were asked to leave. Then after they left, these ballots were pulled out of a hidden location and counted without observers. This is, to my understanding, contrary to law. The valid question here is that if these ballots were on the up and up, why ask the observers to leave? And this isn't even getting into the witness testimony on how observers were treated.
The question that a court should be asking is why did you lie about counting being halted when you clearly intended to keep counting? As far as I can see, there is no legitimate answer to this question.
So if these ballots were not valid (we don't know and no third party was around to verify) then how can we trust the GA count? Which brings me back to Wisconsin. How do we know that these "absentee ballots" were valid given that we know at least one case where such ballots were handled illegally (at the very least)?
A fair judge who sees that video has no choice but to invalidate, at a minimum any and every vote counted at that facility. I know that would make a lot of people mad, but you simply cannot tolerate such behavior by state agents. And any anger should be directed at those persons. The question is whether a judge will do this. I honestly do not know.
Secondarily is the situation in Pa. There the secretary of state, in conjunction with the PA (you have no right to make a living) courts, conspired to change election law. This is explicitly illegal as Pa law explicitly gives such power to the legislature and legislature only. Again, a fair judge can and should invalidate any and all ballots cast under the changed regime.
Which brings me to the ballot or the bullet. There are millions of people who are not just skeptical of the political parties, not just skeptical of the political institutions but believe, with evidence that even their ballots are not worth the paper it's printed on (if printed at all). Combine this with the totally out of control governors locking down states while exempting bug businesses, political donors and themselves, bankrupting millions of people without so much as a single piece of legislation being passed, in total contradiction to the Constitutional limits clearly stated in the founding document and you have millions of people who have come to, and will come to see the government as illegitimate.
And these won't be those who have been considered "wacky sovereign citizens" either. These will be masses of "average" people. These are people who watched that restaurant owner who was shut down by Governor Newsom show us how the same Governor allowed a movie crew to set up outdoor dining not 50 feet from her closed down business. They watched the NJ governor talk about how the Constitution was "above his pay grade". People who missed weddings, funerals and the deaths of their loved ones because they were "doing what they were told" while the authorities applauded and supported massive protests, saying that the cause was more important than the virus.
One of the outcomes of this mass delegitimizing of government is that many of those people will simply withdraw from participating in elections. This will leave the government in the hands of those who remain and the government will become more and more hostile to these dissidents, which is quite evident in states like NY and California. And while "conservatives" are not really the type to use police and military force against "fellow Americans", have no doubt that the ruling Democrats have no such qualms (see Waco). After all they will have convinced themselves that the targets of these actions are Nazis or Nazi-adjacent, which is to say, Nazi. And who wants to be the one calling for restraint when dealing with Nazis?
So yes, I think this election has presented the US with a ballot or bullet situation. Unless serious steps are taken to secure the vote regardless of what portion of the population is unhappy with what that entails (I'm looking at you people who don't want voter ID), the government itself will be illegitimate in the eyes of the citizenship. At no time in history does that end well.
My earliest recollection of Walter Williams is an article written by him that my mother placed on the refrigerator. Mom was never the type to push ideologies on me. She would drop hints. It's an old school, I'd dare say "African" where information is given in parables or some other roundabout way. Such things were said in that manner in order to prompt thinking from other people. I put "African" in quotes because I do know that other cultures do similar things.
Anyway. I'm not ashamed to say it but at the time I didn't care what Walter Williams had to say. Like most children living in the socialist paradise called "dependent". Economics was "when was I getting my allowance"?
I didn't care about taxes and the like, because meals magically appeared. Clothes showed up, shoes purchased, house heated and the living was easy.
"Summertime....and the living is easy..."
Anyway. He and Thomas Sowell were out of mind. Fortunately, I never became a big consumer. Though the living was easy, the money was not exactly what you'd call "long". So I did learn the value of "for sale" and the ethic of "learn to fix it yourself". But still.
I didn't really re-acquaint myself with Williams until MUUUUCH later in life. That was because once I took black wealth building seriously, I couldn't abide by certain victim mentalities that are quite popular in many black circles. For example, the pernicious idea that the reason for low black wealth being "white supremacy" when in fact the major reasons are:
1) Single parenthood. 2) Buying too much house 3) Buying too much car. 4) Women's hair care. 5) Mass consumerism.
These are all items that black people have direct control over and yet we are told we have no agency.
Doesn't mean that there aren't racist people out there that will put roadblocks in your way. But roadblocks almost ALWAYS have ways around them. If you're fixated on going down a particular road you'll fail to see the other roads running parallel to it. The point is to get to the destination, not any particular path to it.
Unfortunately, my peers when I was younger thought that the likes of Williams were sellouts and therefore unfit for study. It's a shame though. Williams was brighter than I am. Did more work than I did while I was "raising consciousness". We could have learned by looking at the data he presented and done a lot better.
It's unfortunate that for a large swath of America, Williams is a total unknown. It's particularly sad, but understandable explainable given the history, that he is unknown to many black youth in America while people with not even half his knowledge are given attention.
