The Truth Is Out There

Archive for September, 2024

Yet Another Conspiracy Theory Bites the Dust!


Tin foil hat wearers, unite!

The Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has not yet issued a report on the DOJ’s role in the events of January 6. Horowitz announced on January 15, 2021 that he would conduct the inquiry; the DOJ is the only government agency that hasn’t published the findings of an internal investigation.

Now we know why. Or at least the official excuse.

Horowitz informed the House Weaponization subcommittee on September 25 that he had paused his investigation for an unspecified amount of time so as to not interfere in the department’s “ongoing criminal cases” into January 6. “We reinitiated it last year and I’m in the process of reviewing a draft report,” Horowitz told Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky) during a hearing on FBI retaliation against whistleblowers.

Setting aside the dubious explanation—the DOJ’s criminal investigation continues to this day with new arrests announced each week—Horowitz used the delay to explain why the report won’t be released before Election Day.

But the legitimate reason why the report will be more than four years in the making represents another example of election interference by the Justice Department. Promoting the false narrative about the “insurrection” and placing blame at the feet of Donald Trump is central to the Democrats’ winning election strategy this year. The Biden/Harris regime and their bootlickers in the corporate media consistently portray suspicions that the federal government played an animating if not lead role in the Capitol protest as the stuff of “conspiracy theories.”

So thanks to Horowitz’s foot dragging, arguably the biggest unanswered question of January 6—how many FBI informants were involved—will remain a mystery until after Americans vote this fall and possibly until after Inauguration Day.

Hints and Clues Amid the Subterfuge

Horowitz, however, did tip his hand in terms of whether his report will address the role of FBI informants. Under further questioning by Massie, Horowitz said he intends to reveal the number of FBI informants, officially known as confidential human sources, on Capitol grounds that day. His report may also disclose expenses paid to informants by the FBI:

Horowitz’s comments finally caught the attention of media outlets and lawmakers who’ve ignored this scandal for nearly four years. During a segment on Fox News, which largely stopped covering January 6 following the departure of Tucker Carlson in April 2023, legal analyst Kerri Kupec called Horowitz’s testimony “the sleeper story of the day.”

Kupec told reporter John Roberts that “so many lawmakers and pundits were decried as crazy for suggesting that there could be confidential human sources involved in January 6th and it looks like there might just have been.” 

Roberts responded: “A lot of us were told if you think this you’re crazy, you’re a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist but a lot of it turned out to be true so we’ll see how this goes.”

Perhaps more telling than the coverage at Fox News is the lack of coverage by regime media. Neither the Washington Post, CNN, or MSNBC reported on Horowitz’s testimony; the New York Times, which in a 2022 article confirmed the government’s acknowledgement that at least eight FBI informants were planted inside the Proud Boys, also failed to cover Horowitz’s comments.

Where Ya’ Been, Guys?

GOP leaders in Congress also took note. Calling Horowitz’s testimony about FBI informants an “alarming bit of information,” House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed his office will push for answers. “I’ll be requesting classified briefings,” Johnson told Fox News congressional correspondent Chad Pergram after the hearing.

One could commend Johnson for finally speaking out. A classified briefing will likely yield the same non-answers by the FBI that Director Christopher Wray offers in public. But at least such a briefing generates headlines and keep the story alive.

Pergram then posted a lengthy response from Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman James Jordan (R-Ohio):

How [Horowitz] answered Mr. Massie’s questions, sounds like there were confidential human sources at the Capitol that day. Sounded like it was plural. Like he said, sources. But the part that bothers me is, does it sound like they’re going to be a report on what actually happened? How many? What they were doing. We’re not going to have a report…until after the election. This seemed like news that the American people [have] been seeking for almost four years.

Based on Mr. Horowitz’s testimony, based on the work the committee has done over the last couple years, looks like there were confidential human sources at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. We want to know what took place. We want to know what they were doing. We want to know all the answers to the key questions, and we’d like that information soon.

While Republican interest in the matter is welcome albeit long overdue, there simply is no question FBI informants were involved before and on January 6. It is well known that the FBI embedded informants in both the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers prior to the events of January 6; some participated in pre-planning meetings as well as the protest itself.

During a transcribed interview with the House Judiciary Committee last year, former Washington FBI chief Steven D’Antuono also appeared to confirm multiple FBI offices sent informants to the nation’s capital for January 6. D’Antuono told House Republicans last year that he polled all 56 field offices in 2021 to determine how many FBI informants were involved.

And it is quite possible informants were not the only FBI assets at the Capitol on January 6. Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund estimates “multiple” FBI undercover agents tracked suspected “domestic terrorists” in the city that day. Sund told Tucker Carlson in an August 2023 interview that deploying FBI undercover employees, which are different from informants, represented “regular standard police work.” Sund, however, expressed concern the bureau did not share any information with his office about the use of FBI informants or undercover agents.

None of this passes the smell test. And it never did. Which is why it’s long past time for Republican leaders in Congress to pressure the inspector general to release his report immediately.

If the report is in draft form as Horowitz stated, Republicans must demand an immediate classification review and instruct Attorney General Merrick Garland to post the report by November 1. All demands will be ignored but that should not stop Congressional leaders from doing so. If anything, it will make it harder for the rest of the GOP in Washington—and the regime media—to keep ignoring this major scandal.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are beginning to crumble – none too soon


Diversity: a range of different things.

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

Inclusion: a person or thing that is included within a larger group or structure.

Go try to find a definition of diversity that doesn’t include all the Critical Race Theory terms. Unless you have an old dictionary that you must leaf through the pages of, you won’t find an uncorrupted definition. 

Supposedly, DEI is the antidote to the gross discrimination we are observing today in most mainstream media (MSM). Regretfully, it is thanks to MSM that there are even such aberrations called WOKE, Critical Race Theory, Environment, Social, Governance (ESG), an investing principle that prioritizes environmental issues, social issues, and corporate governance, and every other Social Justice issue you can name. AND it encompasses every aspect of your life. And DEI is based on Critical Race Theory.

For those who need a bit of background on the birth of the  Marxist problem  developed to spur a hopeful but impossible resolution – (Hegelian Dialectic)  read Herbert Marcuse And CRT:  A Solution Looking For A Problem by Scott Sturman, MD, USAFA ’72. 

The crux: Critical Race prophet Herbert Marcuse, a German-born Marxist and “Father of the New Left,” evolved from an obscure academic to a formative figure in Critical Race Theory. His many books and articles, filled with abstruse prose and revolutionary terminology, served as a template and validating authority for the perpetrators of violence and social unrest in the 1960s.

Despite Marcuse’s lifetime of publishing nuanced commentary that attempted to explain and understand the failure of Marxism, his personal boogeyman was capitalism. He spent a career exploring its oppressive and repressive elements and was aghast that workers did not share his disdain and revolt against their masters.

Since Marxism is tantamount to perfection, then any variance must necessarily be the fault of the workers. Flummoxed by this irrationality, the members of the Frankfurt School, of which Marcuse was a member, employed psychotherapy to discern why those who would benefit most from revolution eschewed it.

Confronted with the dilemma, the Critical Theorists deduced that workers had not developed a suitable level of consciousness regarding their plight. Essentially, they did not grasp their misery.

Revolution required the introduction of radical subjectivity to foment discontent and the realization that labor represented enslavement that was economically and socially intolerable. This dynamic represents Marcuse’s concept of alienation, which was made possible by concealment, a process of intrinsic domination within capitalist societies whereby these contradictions are purposefully hidden.

Thus, only by arousing the workers’ consciousness can problems be solved by revolution.

At this point, Marcuse departs from orthodox Marxist dogma, which is wedded to proletarian revolt, and proposes countless marginalized, oppressed groups seeking radical change.

The “inner history of the individual” stipulates that all human differences are a potential source of conflict.

Marcuse’s insights came to fruition in 1964 with the publication of the book “One-Dimensional Mind”. Here he covers his bases and points out that domination is no longer dependent on force or an authority figure but one-dimensional thinking, the antithesis of critical thinking, which relies on two-dimensional thinking. One-dimensional thinking subverts its better by:

  1. The system makes people feel freer than they are in actuality.
  2. The system provides just enough goods to pacify the citizen.
  3. The citizen identifies with his oppressor. (Stockholm    Syndrome)
  4. Political discourse is eliminated.

Once again, a tidy, contrived, circular argument places all the blame on capitalism and exonerates Marxism and its reinterpretations.

Fragmentation of society into component groups is the sine qua non of revolution, and like CRT founder Richard Delgado, Marcuse paid special tribute to radical feminism, which offered in his view “the most important and potentially the most radical political movement we have.” This movement offered a vehicle for all oppressed classes.

Understanding the usefulness of division to achieve revolutionary goals, Marcuse professed androgyny – what better way to stir the pot and disrupt societal norms?

Liberation was useful only to a point, however. According to Marcuse, too much individuality impedes the freedom of others, so freedom and happiness must be limited for coexistence.

The desires of the individual must conform and identify with the apparatus, which in turn defines humanity.

ONCE AGAIN, THE PROMISE OF UTOPIA DESCENDS TO ANARCHY AND RESURRECTS AS OLIGARCHY, WITH FREEDOM AS THE MAJOR CASUALTY.

Back to DEI.

DEI is basedJust recently, the Inclusion at Work Panel, an independent U.K. organization, published a report that found little evidence “DEI efforts such as mandatory anti-bias training and corporate policy overhauls have any positive effect on corporate culture.” In fact, as we are seeing companies fleeing from DEI, the truth – the fallacies of DEI – are coming home to roost. And a lot of people and pension funds are out of a lot of $$$.

As Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn stated: “DEI is an initiative that has been co-opted by the radical Left to lead Americans to believe it will reduce discrimination and quell bias. In reality, the Left has hijacked DEI as part of their hidden agenda to pit Americans of different races, religions, and genders against each other. But studies show that DEI programs accomplish the exact opposite of what the Left wants Americans to believe they do – a report by Harvard Business Review details how most diversity programs fail to increase diversity, and studies indicate that DEI can activate bias or spark a harmful backlash against workers.” 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported a 20% rise in discrimination charges in FY22. In cases related to K-12 education, there was a 144% increase in complaints since 2021. Hmmmmm. Gee Whiz, we have DEI working overtime, and things are getting worse, not better? What can possibly be wrong with this picture?

DEI is based on Critical Race Theory.  Unlike many philosophical works on race that demand a more enriched and critical conversation with whites about race, CRT is adamant about its radical activism, which challenges not only the idea of white privilege but the property rights that whites maintain. CRT’s skepticism to the commonsensical approaches of liberalism and integrationist thought reverses many of the issues philosophical investigations of race aim to achieve. Rather than creating a world of peaceful racial co-existence, CRT works from that premise that, in America, such a world is impossible, and as a consequence, racism cannot be studied with its eye on that illusory promise. In short, CRT maintains that race and racism are inextricable manifestations of the American ethos and, as such, cannot be cured by a constructive engagement with whites.

Or as Tommy J. Curry says in an essay Will the Real CRT Please Stand Up,   “… within Critical Race Theory, racism is not something to be overcome or dispelled because it is a permanent part of the United States culture.” (emphasis added)

Or as Martin Luther King, Jr. said with heartfelt emotion:

So even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day, this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

That speech was in 1963. The Civil Rights Act, written the next year, was to fulfill King Jr.’s dream. And it was. We had been coming out of segregation, and people all over this country were accepting that it would be erased from our laws and behaviors. And we were well on the way until the Global Elite decided to ignite false prejudices in the 

We can thus conclude that no matter how many statistics show there is, at most, systemic anti-Black racism in the United States is marginal. Yet, MSM, government, and schools will be pushing the lie of Critical Race Theory as a must to rectify the almost negligible race issue. Many institutions of higher education are the focus of antisemitism today.

… University of California, Berkeley’s hiring rubric for the grant’s funds, which has been adopted by many other universities, including Northwestern University and the University of Southern California, “penalizes job candidates for espousing colorblind equality and gives low scores to those who say they intend to ‘treat everyone the same,’” according to John Sailer’s opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.  

“The NIH, perhaps most notably, has begun rolling out mandatory ‘Plans for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives.’ The NIH BRAIN initiative upholds the diverse teams working together and capitalizing on innovative ideas and distinct perspectives outperform homogeneous teams. The BRAIN initiative is firmly committed to fostering diversity, inclusivity, and accessibility in the research community.” Don’t worry, be happy. Those researchers and doctors at NIH may not be the best and brightest, but they will be WOKE. So if you ain’t white, male, and heterosexual, you will be fine if you enter those hallowed doors or “benefit” from some of their recent research. 

STARRS — Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services – an organization that understands the difference between discrimination and social justice states: DEI, at its core, minimizes merit-based, objective value systems and promotes the widespread use of quotas and discrimination based on sex and race. STARRS also notes that “record-high suicide rates in the armed forces, estrangement from fellow service members, and the current recruitment crisis reflect poor morale. ; The pool of Americans from which the military has drawn upon (sic) since the country’s beginnings is alienated by leftist DOD doctrines. Comments from military service members, veterans, and their families indicate that they are no longer recommending military service due to the pervasiveness of CRT and DEI policies throughout the armed forces.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. “Nuff said. 

Those pushing DEI, ESG, and CRT are mostly stakeholders (non-governmental organizations [NGOs] attached to the United Nations and doing the bidding of the global elite. They have skin in the game; their job is to be useful idiots, fodder in the asymmetrical war being fought (without guns, so far).

Finally, we are seeing some common sense (or fear of lawsuits for not following the Civil Rights Act) in a number of big businesses and some universities saying adios to DEI and ESG. Molson Coors, Ford Motor Co., John Deere, Lowe’s, Harley-Davidson, and Tractor Supply Co. are just the first to wake up and get out. This should be the beginning of the end – even if it is just one of the illegal, abhorrent tools of asymmetric warfare. Some universities are also showing common sense on this issue.

If the Civil Rights Act wasn’t functioning, I could see a need for other options, but that is not the case. And, regretfully, DEI is not what it’s being sold as – a panacea for a non-functional Act; it is, instead, a repugnant tool to cancel our culture – with we Americans doing the canceling.

It’s time to slay the dragon and get back to good ol’ basic values, attitudes, and beliefs.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The WHO continues its march for power


Back in June, there was encouraging news that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) pandemic agreement failed to pass. This agreement would have surrendered American sovereignty to unaccountable and unelected international bureaucrats operating at the behest of special interests. Thankfully, this agreement failed to pass.

But the WHO isn’t giving up. It is continuing its march for power.

The issue was brought up to members of Congress for a press conference on the Hill to raise awareness about the ongoing power grab attempt by the United Nations (UN) and the WHO.

The globalists at the UN and the WHO want power over America’s public health policy. If they are successful, their proposed pandemic agreement will irreparably harm American national sovereignty. Family Research Council Action (FRC Action) has been working on this matter and keeping you updated over the past year. Would you consider supporting our work by making a donation today?

This past weekend, the UN hosted a conference called “Summit of the Future” where certain international agreements, including the Pact for the Future, were discussed. The Pact would give the WHO power over the response to future pandemics, large-scale climate events, major events in space, and much more.

During the press conference, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) told reporters there were “enough examples and enough reasons” listed in the Pact for the Future’s emergency platform “for them to get involved pretty much whenever and wherever they want to.”

He later said on Washington Watch, “They want authority. They want global governance. And they’ll do whatever they can to achieve that. This agreement that we’re trying to stop would give them authority, global authority, in multiple categories of catastrophic events that might happen around the world.”

Congressman Crane also pointed out that Americans will not be able to vote the WHO’s bureaucrats out of office, meaning they will not be held accountable to we the people. This would be a terrible infringement upon American sovereignty, which is why FRC Action has been sounding the alarm for quite some time.

Recently, the U.S. House passed the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act. This important bill would require the Senate to ratify the WHO’s pandemic agreement since it would function as a legally binding treaty. The Senate should also pass this measure to protect American sovereignty.

That’s one reason why the upcoming election is so important. Our nation needs leaders who will protect American sovereignty, not those who will hand it over to bureaucrats overseas. After all, our elected members of Congress are supposed to be the ones who represent the people of the United States.

Also discussed during the UN conference was the UN’s Global Digital Compact, which would require member states to control misinformation and disinformation. Under said Compact, even communications critical of the WHO could be characterized as “misinformation.” The UN’s Common Agenda document would provide “accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content.”

We cannot allow this dangerous power grab to go unchallenged. I am convinced that the UN and the WHO think we are not paying attention to what they are trying to do. They would be mistaken.

Tens of thousands of you have already signed petitions to Congress urging them not to allow Washington to cede American sovereignty to the WHO.

The United States should defund the UN and the WHO, and any pandemic agreement or treaty should be submitted to the Senate for ratification.

While many ignore the WHO’s continual march for power, actions will continue sounding the alarms and work to stop it. Our members of Congress must act to protect American sovereignty from the WHO.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The “Financial Coup” That Seized America


In the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis, former chief economist of the IMF Simon Johnson warned that the same dysfunctional policies he saw in his basket case banana republics had taken hold in the United States.

Johnson warned that if America didn’t act fast, we would plunge into a “Quiet Coup” as the American financial system effectively captures the government, bailing itself out until we run out of money.
Well, we didn’t act fast. In fact, we got worse.

And here we are.

Our Bankrupt Financial System

In recent videos I’ve talked about the trillion of distress in the financial system, the common thread being that you, the taxpayer, will be bailing them all out — we saw this in the 2023 bank bailouts, pre-paid in the dark.

Of course, given our $35 trillion in national debt we can’t afford it. But pay it we will, driving that 35 trillion to, according to the CBO, 50 trillion plus.

At some point, it gets too big to bail out. Meaning either hard default — they stop paying interest. Or the more likely soft default — they let inflation rip, melting away the national debt along with our life savings. And between here and there is a wholesale fleecing of the middle class and the working class who relies on them for a job.

The Ignored Warning

So, first, the ignored warning by Simon Johnson. I’m no fan of the IMF — their role is essentially feeding their client dictators fresh drugs at massive taxpayer expense. But one thing the IMF does know is dysfunctional governments.

In his warning, Johnson detailed the typical pattern when countries collapse — when they come in desperation to the IMF.

First, a small group of powerful elites takes over policy. This is typically financial elite, or large companies when the country has them.

Because these elites know they’ll be bailed out, they take excessive risks in good times. An iron law of finance is that risk pays reward. Meaning if you know you’re going to get bailed out, you’d be a moron not to take on too much risk.

If every hand at the poker game is all-in, inevitably you lose. You pass your losses to the taxpayer, and start over with fresh chips, courtesy of the suckers.

The Quiet Coup

Johnson lays out his numbers: from 1973 to 1985, America’s financial sector never earned more than 16% of domestic corporate product. But by the early 2000s, it was earning 41%.

It turned a chunk of these profits into lobbying, repealing Depression-era prudential regulations separating banking and investment banking. In other words, freeing banks to gamble with taxpayer-guaranteed funds.

Then it lobbied to raise leverage — meaning how much the financial sector could borrow. So it could make large gambles with a small amount of money — again, all taxpayer guaranteed.
The end result was the 2008 crisis, where banks made trillions in risky loans to people with no income, no assets, and no credit.

The leverage meant they had bet the farm and then some — keeping all the profits. Then when it turned south, they sicced lobbyists on Washington to line up bailouts, using the real economy as a hostage to wring out yet more lobbyist favors.

The Washington-Wall Street Racket

In return, they gave politicians and their staff plum positions or even outright bribes.
Ben Bernanke got $250,000 for a single speech at a financial conference.

Janet Yellen was paid *$7 million in speaking fees by Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks — hedge fund Citadel paid Yellen $292,500 for a single speech.

London-based Standard Chartered paid $270,000 for one speech — interesting for a foreign bank when we can only imagine what favors were done in return.

Johnson sums it up: the American financial system is “desperately ill,” kept alive only by an endless series of bailouts, like the ones that headed off bank failures last year.

He says the only solution is forced recognition of bank losses — which would bankrupt them — then selling them to new management that will not have access to bailouts.

What’s Next

Given their lobbying power, the odds of breaking up America’s megabanks are slim to none.
Meaning unless Washington reins in the banks, we’re in store for more existential financial crises, more bailouts and national debt, more running out the clock to financial catastrophe.

We missed our chance in 2008, and in all likelihood, it will take an even bigger crisis before politicians turn on their lobbyists and the financial coup that has seized our republic.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Guest Column: DOJ Dusts Off Civil War-Era Statute to Replace 1512(c)(2)


In the aftermath of SCOTUS ruling that overturned DOJ’s most common felony against J6ers, the Department of Justice is using an antiquated law to keep punishing Trump supporters.

This is a guest post by David W. Fischer, a Maryland and D.C.-based criminal defense attorney and the senior partner at Fischer & Putzi, P.A.  Most recently, Fischer defended January 6 defendant Thomas Caldwell, who was acquitted on seditious and other conspiracy charges.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. 

That’s what Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is doing in their over-zealous prosecution of January 6 defendants.  In June, the Supreme Court in United States v. Fischer effectively nuked hundreds of “obstruction” of Congress charges against January 6 defendants, ruling that a post-Enron statute, 18 U.S.C. §1512, designed to punish document destruction, did not apply to a Capitol Hill protest “gone wild.” 

Nonetheless, obsessed with targeting Trump supporters, the DOJ is now charging multiple defendants with a Civil War-era statute—18 U.S.C. § 372—which punishes (up to 6 years in prison) those who intimidate “officers of the United States” from their posts.  The DOJ charges that J6ers conspired to chase Members of Congress from Capitol Hill in violation of Section 372.  Once again, the DOJ is unfairly prosecuting J6ers under a statute that does not apply to their conduct.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 372 punishes conspiracies “to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed[.]”  The DOJ’s position is that Members of Congress hold the “offices” and are the “officers of the United States” that are covered by Section 372 and, accordingly, that J6ers can be prosecuted for allegedly causing their evacuation from Capitol Hill.  The DOJ is obviously wrong from both a historical and statutory construction standpoint. 

Enacted During the Civil War

In April 1861, confederate soldiers and sympathizers began forcibly seizing federal property within the southern and border states, chasing Union soldiers (Fort Sumpter), postmasters, custom house managers, and other federal officials from their posts.  Congress quickly responded by passing a series of laws that included what is now Section 372.  The obvious purpose of Section 372 was to protect “officers of the United States,” a term of art used in the Constitution, which applies to those individuals who hold federal jobs in the government thanks to the “Appointments Clause,” Art. II, § II, cl. II.  Members of Congress, however, are not constitutional “officers of the United States.” 

Members of Congress are not ‘Officers of the United States’ Under the Constitution

That Members of Congress are not “officers of the United States” is widely accepted among constitutional scholars.   As the Supreme Court observed in Bowsher v. Synar, which struck down portions of the 1980s Gramm-Rudman Act, “[N]o person who is an officer of the United States may serve as a Member of the Congress.”  Additionally, Members of Congress do not hold an “office, trust, or place of confidence” as that term is used in Section 372. 

In fact, this phrase is boilerplate language used in ubiquitous commissions given to presidential appointees, e.g., military officers, federal judges, etc., since the days of President George Washington.  Presidential commissions of “trust and confidence” are issued to “officers” pursuant to the Commissions Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 3, cl. 4 (“[The President] shall commission all the officers of the United States.”).  A Member of Congress does not receive a “commission” because he or she, unlike federal judges, executive branch appointees, and military officers, is not an “officer of the United States” and, hence, does not hold an “office, trust, or place confidence.”

The DOJ’s Counter-Argument is Baseless

 In court filings, the DOJ has not disputed that, under the Constitution, Members of Congress are not “officers of the United States.”  Instead, the DOJ argues that the 1861 Congress that enacted Section 372 used the term “officer of the United States” in a sense broader than the technical, constitutional definition.  According to the DOJ, because Members of Congress “hold office,” they are covered by Section 372’s use of the term “officers of the United States.”  This argument, however, is baseless. 

In fact, binding Supreme Court precedent from the 19th century holds that, when used in federal criminal statutes, the terms “office,” “officer,” and “officer of the United States,” absent unambiguous language to the contrary, refer to individuals who received positions via the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

In one of those cases decided in 1878, United States v. Germaine, a surgeon hired by the Commissioner of Pensions was indicted for extortion while serving as, in the words of the statute, an “officer of the United States.”  Arguing for the indictment’s dismissal, the surgeon argued that because he was not appointed to his position pursuant to the Appointments Clause, he could not be convicted of violating a statute, which applied only to “officers of the United States.”  The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that absent unambiguous language to the contrary, the term “officer of the United States,” when used in criminal statutes, is limited to individuals appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause.  In 1925, the Supreme Court in Steele v. United States summarized its numerous 19th century: “It is quite true that the words ‘officer of the United States,’ when employed in the statutes of the United States, is to be taken usually to have the limited constitutional meaning.”

Other Language in Section 372 Supports the J6ers

Section 372’s wording, moreover, proves that Members of Congress are not covered by the statute.  This statute punishes conspiracies aimed at preventing individuals “from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States[.]” Members of Congress, obviously, do not “accept” their positions—instead, they assume or take office.  A person “accepting” an “office, trust, or place of confidence” presupposes that someone offered that person position they accepted.

Members of Congress, by contrast, run for their offices and are elected by the voters. They do not “accept” government job “offers.” Accordingly, the phrase “office, trust, or place of confidence” in § 372—which lists stations that can be “accepted,” obviously does not include Members of Congress

Additionally, Congress’s use of the phrase “any person . . . holding any office . . . under the United States” in Section 372 further proves that Members of Congress are not covered by the statute’s language. This language, tellingly, appears to have been lifted from the Constitution’s “Ineligibility Clause,” pursuant to which Members of Congress are prohibited from simultaneously holding “offices”: “[N]o Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”  (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2).  It is beyond belief that Congress intended to include itself in Section 372 by using verbatim language from the Constitution’s Ineligibility Clause, which actually bars Members of Congress from holding “offices.”

More Abuses of the Law

One of the unfortunate aspects of the lawfare that has been unleashed against Donald Trump and his supporters has been the misuse of federal criminal statutes.  Section 372 was enacted with a very specific purpose:  to protect commissioned officers in charge of various federal outposts throughout the United States, especially in southern states.  Additionally, the Supreme Court has made clear that criminal statutes that use the terms “office” or “officer of the United States” do not apply to individuals other than commissioned, presidential appointees. 

As Members of Congress were not covered in Section 372’s language, the DOJ’s use of this statute against J6ers is a total and complete miscarriage of justice just as everything else this bully agency is.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Suspect Charged in Trump Assassination Attempt: What Really Happened at Golf Course Trump was at?


In a shocking incident that’s raising more questions than answers, Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, has been charged with two federal firearm offenses after an apparent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. The events unfolded on Sunday at Trump International Golf Course in West Palm Beach, Florida, leaving many wondering what really went down that day.

A Suspicious Setup?

According to the official reports, Routh was armed with an AK-47-style rifle and was positioned approximately 300 to 500 yards away from the former president when Secret Service agents spotted him. The suspect didn’t fire any shots and reportedly didn’t even have a clear line of sight to Trump. But why was he there with a rifle? And how did the Secret Service manage to spot him from that distance?

Law enforcement quickly issued an alert for Routh’s black Nissan, which was pulled over and stopped about 50 miles away. Curiously, Routh did not resist arrest and was detained without incident. It seems almost too neat, doesn’t it?

Who is Routh?

His social media accounts were completely scrubbed moments after the assassination attempt, which again leads to more questions. Posts on X show that he hated Donald Trump, although he previously voted for him. He also hates Israel! See some screen grabs below.

The Mysterious Gear Found at the Scene

Authorities recovered an AK-47-style rifle, a scope, two backpacks with ceramic tiles, and a GoPro camera in the bushes near the golf course. It’s a curious collection of items, to say the least. What was he planning to do with ceramic tiles? And why was there a GoPro? Was this intended to be recorded for some reason, or was it all just a bizarre coincidence?

These odd details make you wonder if there’s more to this story than meets the eye. Was Routh acting alone, or could there be something else at play here?

Was Routh Legally Allowed to Own a Firearm?

As details continue to emerge about Ryan Wesley Routh, the man charged in connection with the recent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, his extensive criminal record is coming to light. And it’s a record that’s as alarming as it is extensive, making us wonder how someone with this kind of background managed to slip through the cracks.

A History of Illegal Firearm Possession

Routh’s criminal record is riddled with charges that should have prevented him from legally owning a firearm. His history includes multiple counts of “carrying a concealed weapon” and “possession of a weapon of mass destruction,” which in his case was a fully automatic machine gun. These charges date back to 2002 and include both felony and misdemeanor convictions. So, how did someone with a rap sheet like this end up armed and dangerously close to a former president?

Repeated Run-Ins with the Law

From driving with a revoked license to resisting arrest, Routh’s criminal history reads like a catalog of bad decisions. Let’s break down some of the key offenses:

  • 2002: Routh was charged multiple times for driving with a revoked license and carrying a concealed weapon, both of which are serious offenses. He was also involved in a hit-and-run and was charged with resisting an officer. These were not isolated incidents but rather part of a pattern of criminal behavior that escalated over time.
  • 2003: He faced additional charges, including more counts of driving with a revoked license and other misdemeanors.
  • 2010: Routh was convicted of possessing stolen goods, a felony offense that led to probation and a suspended sentence.

With a record like this, one would expect that Routh would be on the radar of law enforcement and subject to restrictions that would prevent him from obtaining firearms. Yet, somehow, he was still able to get his hands on an AK-47-style rifle. How?

Here’s a copy of his rap sheet.

The Legal Loopholes and System Failures

This is where the questions really start to pile up. Federal and state laws are supposed to prevent individuals with felony convictions or a history of illegal firearm possession from acquiring new weapons. But it seems like Routh managed to bypass these safeguards. Was this due to a failure in the background check system? Did he obtain the firearm through illegal means? Or is there another explanation that we’re not seeing yet?

Implications for Gun Control Debate

Routh’s case is likely to become a focal point in the ongoing debate over gun control and the effectiveness of existing laws. His ability to access a firearm despite a clear history of disqualifying offenses raises serious concerns about the enforcement of current regulations. If someone with a record like his can still get armed and pose a threat, what does that say about the system?

Trump’s Reaction: Calm Amidst the Chaos

Despite the apparent threat, Trump has been described as being in good spirits following the incident. He’s recounted the event to multiple friends, family members, and advisers, thanking the Secret Service for their quick response. Interestingly, he even joked that he wished he could have finished his round of golf. It’s a pretty light-hearted reaction to what could have been a catastrophic event. Is Trump downplaying the incident, or does he know something we don’t?

During an event on the social media platform X, Trump described hearing the shots fired by the Secret Service agents: “We heard shots being fired in the air, and I guess probably four or five… But what do I know about that?” The former president’s comments leave us wondering: was this just another day in the life of a highly-protected figure, or is there something more to his nonchalant attitude?

A Pattern of Attacks: Is There a Bigger Picture?

This incident marks the second assassination attempt on Trump in just a few months. Back in July, a shooter in Butler, Pennsylvania, killed one person and wounded two others. Trump’s reaction to this latest attempt? He called it a “much better result” because no one was killed or wounded. But is there a pattern emerging here?

Why are these attacks happening so close together, and why is the response so different each time? It’s almost as if someone—or some group—wants to send a message. But who? And why now?

More Questions Than Answers

As authorities continue to investigate, the official narrative leaves much to be desired. Why did Routh have a GoPro and ceramic tiles? Why didn’t he fire any shots if he was truly there to do harm? How did the Secret Service spot him so quickly and react with such precision?

There are so many unanswered questions surrounding this case, and each new detail only seems to add more layers of intrigue. While we may never get the full story, one thing is clear: the official explanation isn’t sitting well with a lot of people.

Category:

Uncategorized

Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire


Treasury just had its worst August ever and things are getting worse

Janet ‘Inflation-Is-Transitory’ Yellen once again has egg on her face. After laughably low deficit projections for the current fiscal year, Treasury has now blown past those forecasts, and we still have a month to go before the end of the current fiscal year. Worse yet, the latest monthly Treasury statement set several record “firsts” — none of which were good.

Janet Yellen economics for dummies - Imgflip

While people already knew that annual interest on the debt was heading to $1 trillion, this was the first time it had ever been recorded. As of August, the 11th month of the fiscal year, the government has spent over $1.049 trillion just to service the $35.3 trillion debt. What makes it scarier is that we still have another month to go in the current fiscal year.

It didn’t even take all 12 months to prove wrong those folks saying interest on the debt wouldn’t break the $1-trillion threshold.

Even with interest rate cuts, there’s no significant evidence that the problem is slowing down. That’s because interest on the debt is a function of BOTH the average interest rate on securities AND the total debt outstanding. Well, the latter is exploding.

Keynes Is the Freddie Krueger of Economics

We’ll add about another $1 trillion to the federal debt before the end of the calendar year, and then likely continue adding about $1 trillion every 100 days or so from there on out.

This was also the worst deficit for the month of August ever—including the blowout spending years of 2020 and 2021 when Congress pushed through all kinds of bloated pork. In fact, at $380 billion, it’s larger than any other monthly deficit of fiscal years 2024 or 2023.

Image

And this isn’t a revenue problem—it’s a spending problem. Despite concerns of a recession, tax revenue has actually held up, so the burgeoning deficit is clearly coming from the other side of the ledger.

In the first 11 months of the current fiscal year, the federal government took in almost as much revenue as in the entire prior fiscal year. If we look at the comparable period (first 11 months of both FY’s) then we see revenues have increased from $4.0 trillion to $4.4 trillion. Spending, however, has increased even faster.

This past August, federal outlays were $687 billion, compared to $194 billion in August 2023 — more than tripling in just one year. Outlays in the comparable period between both years have gone from $5.5 trillion (2023) to $6.3 trillion (2024).

Image

Clearly, the ballooning deficit is a spending problem. And what a problem it is.

Specialists and skeptics were very critical of Treasury’s overly optimistic projections on the current fiscal year’s deficit and, sure enough, we were right. The deficit has already blown past the projection for the fiscal year and—as we’ve already said—there’s still another month to go.

The $1.9-trillion deficit will break the $2-trillion threshold with ease once September is in the books.

And there’s no reason to believe multi-trillion-dollar deficits are going away anytime soon because the runaway spending continues. In fact, mandatory spending and interest on the debt together will exceed government revenue for the foreseeable future. So, literally all discretionary spending will be deficit spending.

The monthly Treasury statement for August bears witness to this sad situation: 55 cents of every dollar the federal government spent last month was borrowed. Spending was more than twice all government receipts.

Image

While the profligate spending out of Washington, DC has certainly exploded over the last four years, the interest on the debt is now also a major contributor to the deficit. The increase in the trend of discretionary spending is now less than the increase in the trend of interest on the debt.

In other words, depending on how you want to measure it, interest on the debt is now the largest contributor to the deficit.

For the fiscal year to date, interest on the debt is the third largest line item in the Treasury’s August statement, behind only the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services, both of which have increased relative to their pre-2020 projections, but by much less than interest on the debt.

Image

Federal finance is clearly in shambles, but where do we go from here? Are we actually already in the fiscal doom loop? Yes, and it’s complicated.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Shutting Down The Anti-Gun Argument


Calling out Kamala Harris for her desire to ban and confiscate what she calls ‘assault weapons’ make it seem like she is OK with banning ‘just assault weapons,’ while other firearms would still be acceptable.

The problem? This viewpoint is not based in truth.

This viewpoint stems from misconceptions about what an ‘assault weapon’ is, how these firearms are different than ‘good guns,’ and why they’re crucial for law-abiding citizens to own.

Let’s drive down into this because there’s a lot more to this issue than most people realize.

So… what is an ‘Assault Weapon’?

The military doesn’t use this term ‘assault weapon.’ You’ll never find these terms in any official military documentation or historical record.

It doesn’t exist in those places.

Gun owners don’t use this term for any gun.

Just like we don’t use the term ‘assault knife’ when a criminal attacks and kills dozens with a knife, or ‘assault vehicle’ when someone attacks people with their vehicle.

So where did the term come from?

The term ‘assault weapon’ originated in the United States during the 1980s to the1990s. It’s a political term used to describe certain types of semi-automatic firearms that resemble military weapons – but the civilian firearms are completely different. Civilians cannot own the fully automatic versions of these firearms.

The term ‘assault weapon’ was introduced only in political discourse, popularized by gun control advocates and the media to refer to semi-automatic firearms that look similar to their military counterparts.

The term gained traction with the passage of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which prohibited the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds. The law defined ‘assault weapons’ based largely on cosmetic features such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors, rather than how the firearm functioned.

The term ‘assault weapon’ has been used loosely by politicians and the media to describe certain semi-automatic firearms, especially ones that look intimidating. The problem is that this definition is just all over the place.

Is it how the gun looks?

How fast it shoots?

How many rounds it holds?

Here’s the truth: most of the firearms they call ‘assault weapons’ are simply semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 – which is the most popular sporting rifle in America.

These rifles fire one bullet per trigger pull—just like your granddad’s hunting rifle.

The difference?

Politicians and the media freak out because these rifles look like military rifles.

But guess what?

The AR-15 has never been issued to any soldier in any war in the history of the planet. It’s not a weapon of war; it’s a tool for self-defense.

The term ‘assault weapon’ is a pure media invention just as was ‘the wild West’ in order to sell newspapers at the expense of dumbing down the public. As an aside, there never was a wild West.

When does a gun become an ‘Assault Weapon’?

Is it about how fast you can shoot?

Many think ‘assault weapons’ fire faster, but that’s not true. Both the AR-15 and Glocks (the most popular handgun on the planet) are semi-automatic, firing one bullet per trigger pull.

An AR-15 can be shot as fast as a Glock.

So, it can’t be about speed.

It it about how many rounds the gun holds?

Another common argument is that AR-15’s are dangerous because they have high-capacity magazines, typically holding 30 rounds.

But here’s the thing: one can get a 30-round magazine for a Glock, too. In fact, consumers can get a Glock magazine that holds 100 rounds!

So, if the number of rounds is the problem, then why single out the AR-15?

(Now… if you’re of the thinking, “yes! It’s how many rounds it holds! No one needs 30 rounds!”) Just hang tight… not so damned fast there Senator!

Is it just the way it looks?

When one is stripped it down, the big issue people seem to have with the AR-15 is that it looks like a military weapon.

But looks don’t kill—it’s the function that matters.

And functionally, the AR-15 operates just like any other semi-automatic firearm.

The idea that an AR-15 is somehow ‘worse’ just because it looks scarier is pure media hype and emotion.

Is it about how many people it can injure?

One of the most misleading arguments is that AR-15’s can injure or kill more people than other weapons. But here’s the truth: Criminals can use ANY weapon for deadly attacks.

Let’s look at some examples:

  • The Nice Truck Attack (2016): A terrorist used a truck to mow down pedestrians in Nice, France, killing 86 people. No guns involved. We didn’t rename trucks into “assault trucks.”
  • Kunming Train Station Attack (2014): A group of attackers armed with knives killed 31 people and injured more than 140 at a train station in China. A knife, in the hands of a criminal, can be just as deadly as any firearm. We didn’t rename these knives into “assault knives.”
  • London Bridge Attack (2017): Attackers used a van to run people over and then went on a stabbing spree, killing 8 people and injuring dozens more. Again, no firearms needed to carry out mass carnage. We didn’t start saying “assault van.”

It’s not the tool, it’s the intent.

Whether it’s a gun, a knife, or even a vehicle, people with evil intentions will find ways to cause harm.

The idea that banning AR-15’s would somehow stop mass violence is simply false.

Criminals will always find ways to inflict harm—so why take away the most effective tool law-abiding citizens have to defend themselves?

OK, So They Get Banned… Then What?

Let’s say the politicians get their way and AR-15s are banned. What would that actually look like?

Would criminals—the very people committing most of the violent crimes—suddenly give up their AR-15’s? Or would they keep them?

Let’s be real here: Criminals don’t follow laws.

They aren’t going to march into a police station and hand over their rifles just because there’s a new ban in place.

To put it into perspective, let’s take a look at the war on drugs. Drugs have been illegal since the Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970.

We’ve had entire government agencies, drug-sniffing dogs, undercover agents, and countless resources devoted to removing illegal drugs from the streets.

Yet, drugs are still everywhere. If someone wants drugs, they’ll find a way to get them, no matter how many laws we pass or how many task forces we deploy.

Now imagine applying that same logic to AR-15s. Would we need to train dogs to sniff out AR-15s? Create a new government agency to find and confiscate them? The idea is just as unrealistic as it sounds.

The bottom line is this: banning AR-15s won’t stop criminals from getting their hands on one. If a criminal wants an AR-15, they’ll get one—just like they do with illegal drugs.

The only people impacted by these bans are law-abiding citizens.

Stripping away my right to own an AR-15 leaves me defenseless against the criminals who will still have theirs.

“No One Needs 30 Round Magazines!”

Now let’s talk about why law-abiding citizens need AR-15s.

First, we’ve got to consider what’s happening at the southern border.

It’s no secret that criminals and gang members are crossing into our country at alarming rates.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection says 10 million illegal immigrants have crossed the border illegally since Biden has been in office. (Trump says the number is closer to 21 million, but either way – it’s more than a LOT.)

Among them are thousands of violent criminals, gang members, and terrorists’ intent on doing us harm.

With violent crime on the rise (ironically, particularly in cities and states with harsher gun laws) law-abiding citizens are finding themselves more vulnerable than ever.

According to the FBI, there were nearly 1.3 million violent crimes reported across the U.S. in 2022 alone, including homicides, aggravated assaults, and robberies.

We’re talking about real threats that people face in their neighborhoods, not in some far-off battlefield.

Given here are a couple of recent examples where an AR-15 would have been crucial for self-defense:

  1. Israel on October 7th, 2023 – During the surprise attack on Israel, civilians were caught completely off guard by armed militants. Imagine if those citizens had been equipped with AR-15s—they could have defended their homes and families with the same firepower the attackers used. In situations like this, an AR-15 isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity for survival. Think this can’t happen here? Just watch. It’s coming.
  2. Aurora, Colorado – Just recently, residents of an apartment complex found themselves terrorized by Venezuelan gangs who seized control of entire buildings. Local law enforcement was overwhelmed, and these citizens were left to fend for themselves. Those criminals had AR15s – why shouldn’t the citizens have had them?
  3. Seattle’s CHAZ/CHOP Zone (2020) – During the summer of 2020, parts of Seattle were effectively seized by protesters who set up the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (CHAZ). For weeks, law enforcement was absent, and violence surged inside the zone. Residents and business owners were left defenseless against theft, vandalism, and violence. Should we not allow residents and business owners to have access to AR15s for self defense?
  4. Minneapolis Riots (2020) – Following the death of George Floyd, Minneapolis was gripped by violent riots that destroyed entire neighborhoods. Buildings were burned to the ground, looters roamed freely, and law enforcement was stretched thin. Many business owners were left helpless as their properties were ransacked and destroyed. Should we have prevented business owners access to life-saving tools like AR15s?
  5. The Ferguson Riots (2014) – After the shooting of Michael Brown, Ferguson, Missouri, experienced weeks of unrest, including looting, arson, and violent confrontations. Property owners had little to no means of protecting their businesses and homes from the destruction. With an AR-15, they could have defended themselves from the mobs.
  6. Hurricane Harvey Looting (2017) – In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, widespread looting occurred in parts of Houston, Texas. Law enforcement was focused on rescuing people and dealing with the disaster, leaving many residents vulnerable to criminals taking advantage of the situation. An AR-15 would have been an invaluable tool for those who had to face looters in the aftermath of the hurricane.
  7. The Sutherland Springs Church Shooting (2017) – A hero armed with an AR-15 stopped the mass shooter responsible for the Sutherland Springs church massacre. The shooter had killed 26 people, and without the intervention of Stephen Willeford and his AR-15, the tragedy could have been far worse. This real-life example shows how these rifles can be life-saving tools in the hands of responsible citizens.

Conclusion

The media and politicians want to scare you with buzzwords like ‘assault weapon’ but the truth is, the AR-15 is nothing more than a tool for self-defense. With rising crime rates, unchecked illegal immigration, and real threats to our safety, law-abiding citizens need the means to protect themselves and their families.

So the next time someone tells you that no one ‘needs’ an AR-15, remind them of the criminals crossing our borders, the violent crime on our streets, and the moments in history when people did need those very tools to protect their lives.

Stay safe, stay vigilant, and protect your rights. We’re all in this together.

Category:

Uncategorized

Witchcraft is now taught at universities! How did Modern Academia Become Enamored with Magic?


The postmodern university is fascinated with magic, and this is a most curious coupling—one with ominous social overtones.

Until the mid-twentieth century, serious academics regarded any mention of magic as the ravings of the stupid or insane. They followed the scientific method of empiricism, emphasizing verifiable evidence in acquiring knowledge and forming ideas.

What is Magic, Anyway?

The “Occult Art, Occultism” entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia defines magic as “an interference with the usual course of physical nature.” The practitioner accomplishes it by “recitation of formularies, gestures, mixing of incongruous elements, and other mysterious actions.” The effort is an “attempt to work miracles not by the power of God…but by the use of hidden forces beyond man’s control. Its advocates…seek the desired result by evoking powers ordinarily reserved to the Deity.” Magic “is a corruption of religion.”

The Encyclopedia makes another highly pertinent point. Magic, it says, “appears as an accompaniment of decadent rather than of rising civilization.”

Science Versus Magic

The new-found interest in magic seems strange in a world that has long been dominated by materialism and rigid use of the scientific method.

Many academics became so obsessed with the scientific method that they saw it as the only way to discern the truth. This sense germinated a heresy called “scientism,” defined by Merriam-Webster as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities).” Among scientism’s harmful effects was the ridicule academics heaped upon Christianity. To many, the idea of anything supernatural—good or evil—was simply too absurd to be seriously considered.

Throughout the twentieth century, this materialistic model prevailed. It ignored the fact that each individual is comprised of body and soul. The spiritual side is the superior one from which springs spiritual needs and desires.

This superior side of human nature makes every person unique and establishes their dignity. This side is what gives rise to political, social, cultural, and religious activities and sciences that tower above mere material economic sustenance. It deals more directly with life’s more important things and, ultimately, one’s eternal salvation.

The modern fixation with material progress soon produced immense longings for the long-neglected spiritual fulfillment. However, instead of returning to Christianity, the sixties generation filled that spiritual void with drugs, music and sexual fantasies that rebelled against progress and the staid establishment.

Others would embrace Eastern pseudo-religions or find fulfillment in the occult, witchcraft or magic.

These trends have become so mainstream that they are now found in the halls of academia, which once saw themselves as the transmitters of empiricism and scientism.

Course Descriptions

The new fascination with the occult is best seen in the official descriptions from college catalogs. From the Religion Department at Ivy-League Columbia comes “Magic and Modernity,” a three-credit class.

“This course introduces students to the cultural history of magic: as an idea, as a practice, and as a tool with which [to] wield power and induce wonder. Magic, as we will explore, is a modern concept, the contours of which have been shaped by its relations with religion and science, always against larger backdrops—of the Enlightenment, Romanticism, (post) colonialism, and (post) secularism.”

The Ivy League school in New Haven, Connecticut, offers the mysteriously named HIST 214J, “History of the Night.” Yale’s catalog explains.

“This seminar is dedicated to the reality and the perception of the night across time and in different cultures…. Nightfall provides multiple opportunities for dissent and rebellion and becomes an ideal space for marginal and subordinate people. Historical analysis, literary texts, medical and scientific writings, and primary sources…examine how the night became the abode of the ghost, the devil, the witch, and the dead, and how the night became criminalized, commercialized and even politicized.”

All Fun and Games?

Indiana University Bloomington invites students to participate in “A History of Magic, or It’s All Fun and Games Until Someone Gets Accused of Witchcraft.”

“Do you believe in magic? Historically, a lot of people have done…. We have records of attempts to divine who will win a battle, recipes for spells to make your boss like you more, and witchcraft accusations against the most disempowered and disliked people in a community. This course then takes us through the varied sources on magic to ask the question—why were people interested in magic?”

Freshmen at Tulane may want to explore a course inspired, in part, by the University’s home city of New Orleans, “Ancient Magic, Modern Witchcraft.”

“For the inhabitants of the ancient world, magic and witchcraft were part of everyday life. In modern-era New Orleans, magical practitioners have also found a home and a place in the local culture. This course will explore magical literature, rituals, and beliefs in two ways: first as they existed in ancient Near Eastern civilizations (such as Mesopotamia and biblical Israel), and how these beliefs continue into modern America (especially locally in NOLA).”

Do-It-Yourself Spells

Perhaps, though, none of these classes can match the final exam in Duke University’s writing course 101.11, “Radical Magic.”

“For your final project, you will create your own personal grimoire, or spell-book. Yes, you read that right—a spell book! This non-traditional assignment challenges the distinctions we often put between writing, crafting, art, and magic, and it will provide a space to try new things….”

Engineering majors who take Radical Magic to satisfy the writing requirement may be comforted by the catalog’s inclusion of a pseudo-mathematical equation, “RM = (W+L+H+R+A).” It translates to “Radical Magic = Writing + Literature + History + Religion + Art.”

A Serious Side to the Academic Foolishness

It is tempting to make fun of the attempts at erudite sophistication with which these colleges cloak these imitation academic offerings. However, their adolescent attempts to shock and amaze the students mask a deadly seriousness. As mentioned before, magic is a sign of a society’s degeneration. Even more than that, these naïve students and their professors are playing with the very substance of evil itself, which has massive and unforeseeable consequences. That is especially true for those who play with a Devil in whom they do not believe.

In 1949, young Robbie Mannheim experienced Satanic possession through “playing” on a Ouija board with his Aunt Harriet. Perhaps these young people would be amused at the prospect, but any exorcist can tell them that the possibility is deadly (and eternally) serious. God will not be mocked, and the devil plays for keeps.

Category:

Uncategorized

The False Attack on Price Gouging Is the Quickest Way to a Socialist Venezuela-Style Economy


Economist Friedrich von Hayek once pointed out that pricing’s charm stems from its unplanned emergence without deliberate human creation. Prices make complex processes easier by offering a standard unit of exchange. They smooth out interactions in the face of hurdles like rising transportation costs, material shortages and consumer preferences.

However, this delicate price mechanism can be destroyed if the government intervenes by artificially setting prices. Hayek’s mentor, Ludwig von Mises, warned that government-imposed prices, detached from production realities, lead to scarcity, inflation and a thriving black market.

Price control is now being proposed as a solution to the ever-rising cost of living and food. The alleged culprit for the higher prices is “price gouging.” Greedy corporations are raising prices to make record profits at the expense of the poor and middle classes.

The food industry is one of many fighting back against Kamala Harris’s price gouging plan. Companies deny claims of corporate greed and show why these claims are false.

When asked about the price gouging plan, the National Grocers Association said, “It’s an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist.” It stressed that its members face the same rising costs as shoppers. Most companies don’t apologize for keeping their profits stable; that’s why they’re in business.

Firms struggle to cope with the burden of government-mandated pricing because it does not respect the nature of a free market economy. Such policy comes from the hubris of politicians who believe they know better than all the stakeholders in business. Target CEO Brian Cornell states, “Companies can’t afford to engage in price gouging in a competitive sector like retail.”

The former Secretary of Commerce and Kellogg CEO Carlos Gutierrez stated, “I thought we would’ve learned by now that price controls do not work. They actually have the opposite effect. They make inflation worse, they lead to shortages, they create a black market.”

Food producers especially face challenges with rapid payroll increases and precarious supply chains. Industry leaders indicate that a long-term rise in operating costs has led to higher prices. They point out that the profit margins of food producers and sellers are smaller than other industries. They strongly deny the allegations of gouging.

Socialists are quick to paint these companies as greedy exploiters of the market during times of economic unrest. Price gouging is a typical mantra leftists use to blame for the inflation they cause.

Due to the pandemic, prices jumped in 2021 for many consumer goods. Producers dealt with supply-chain issues and the rising costs of raw materials, fuel and transportation. At the same time, a poorly conceived federal stimulus program fueled spending, which in turn caused more inflation.

One way food producers lessened the pain of higher prices was by slightly decreasing the size of products while maintaining the same cost to consumers. President Biden used Instagram to call out companies for this, calling it “shrinkflation.” While not illegal, many see it as a deceptive way of raising consumers’ prices without resorting to price increases.

Leftist politicians are proposing a federal ban on price gouging. For example, it calls for prohibiting large companies from making excessive profits on food. The campaign pledges to arm the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general with new tools for investigating and punishing violators while targeting deals that allow large food companies to raise prices and stifle competition.

“Price gouging” is what Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira called a “talismanic word.” The Catholic thinker and man of action noted how the left uses vaguely defined, emotionally charged words with several meanings to advance its agenda. Thus, price gouging can mean anything the left wants it to mean to push its agenda. It uses the word to denote the suffering of consumers and unproven greed on the part of corporations.

The liberals have not clarified what constituted excessive profits or other important charges, souring industry executives about the feasibility of such proposals.

Far from exploiting consumers, large food manufacturers are mounting consumer-friendly efforts to combat higher grocery bills. Retail giants like Walmart are boosting their investment in cheaper store-brand merchandise. Many food manufacturers are using gradual price increases, larger discounts and launching new product lines to lessen the shock.

Food manufacturers point out that even shrinkflation can help consumers by increasing affordability since changing product size to meet consumers’ budget dimensions actually contributes to continuous purchases.

Corporate executives and economists, however, absolutely reject economy-wide price controls as a cure for inflation. Economist David Autor replied bluntly, “Price controls can, of course, control prices—but they’re a terrible idea, with potentially dire consequences!” One only needs to look at any country that has implemented them.

Politicians claim that price controls will help the poor. Rather than lift the poor, they generally destroy the economy and make everyone poorer.

Sound economists propose a different approach, not demagoguery. One way to fight inflation would be to promote policies that boost the supply of inexpensive energy and essential goods and services that can drive down consumer market prices. This approach benefits everyone—companies, consumers and the economy overall.

However, the left does not like such a solution since it does not fit into its ideological mold of class struggle. Price control is a way to set up the rich-poor narrative that brings nations to socialism and state control of industry. It leads to the deplorable conditions of Chavismo’s socialism in Venezuela. It turned Latin America’s most prosperous economy into a basket case of poverty, chaos and crime.

Price control did not work in any socialist or communist country. Why would it work in America now. *Rhetorical

Category:

Uncategorized