That's a very good point

 

In an interview a few days ago, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections in Minnesota raised what I think is a very worthwhile question.

On Friday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Minnesota Department of Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell discussed cooperation between local sheriffs and immigration officials and said that “having judicial orders or detainers or holds that are signed by a judge would address this issue. But, to date, we have not seen a willingness on the part of DHS to pursue those.”

. . .

"... sheriffs are in a very difficult position, because they face legal liability if they hold people beyond their appointed time. And having judicial orders or detainers or holds that are signed by a judge would address this issue."

There's more at the link.

That may be a smokescreen, of course, glossing over the real issue that Minnesota's policy is not to cooperate with Federal authorities over immigration issues, including arrests.  However, the question of administrative versus judicial orders or detainers is, I submit, more important than it may seem at first glance.

In criminal law, a warrant is typically required to arrest someone or search their property. These types of warrants must be issued by a judge; thus, they are also known as “judicial warrants.”

A judicial warrant is a document issued by a judge (or magistrate judge) that authorizes law enforcement officers to perform certain actions (like conducting a search, making an arrest, or seizing property). Judicial warrants are typically issued based on probable cause, which means there must be reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the action authorized by the warrant will yield evidence related to that crime. These warrants serve as a safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that law enforcement actions are conducted within the bounds of the law and respect individuals' constitutional rights.

. . .

An administrative warrant doesn’t need to involve a judge or court at all (though an administrative law judge may review some). Instead, it’s issued by an administrative agency or official, as the name implies.

. . .

Administrative warrants are used for regulatory or administrative purposes, not criminal prosecution. Another difference is that administrative warrants generally have a lower standard than "probable cause,” which is required for judicial warrants. Finally, administrative warrants are based on statutory authority rather than Fourth Amendment requirements (like judicial warrants).

Judicial warrants typically deal with criminal law, whereas administrative warrants typically deal with civil law. That’s part of why the standard for a judicial warrant is higher: life and liberty are on the line. That’s also why judicial warrants will be in the form of either arrest warrants (to apprehend a suspect), search warrants (to search a specific location for evidence of a crime), or seizure warrants (to seize specific property or evidence related to a crime). Judicial warrants are considered more protective of individual rights, as they require a neutral judge's independent review of the evidence and a finding of probable cause.

Again, more at the link.

I can see both sides of this issue.  ICE and other federal agencies often try to arrest hundreds, even thousands of people in a given area (a city, a suburb, at an employer's premises, etc.).  To get individual judicial warrants against every potential suspect in that area might be so great a burden on their administration that it's effectively impossible.  However, that also runs a greater risk that some, at least, of those they arrest might have their civil rights ignored in the process.  We've already seen reports of that;  for example, US citizens arrested and detained for extended periods (sometimes days or even weeks) until they could prove they were legally resident in this country.  ICE and its defenders will protest that they could have produced such proof at any time, but if they were denied access to telephones and other means of communication (a routine occurrence, or so I understand), how were they to ask a family member or other person to deliver such proof?  If they lived alone, how could they get such proof from their place(s) of residence when they were detained, preventing them from traveling to their homes?

A judicial warrant demands a higher standard of proof from law enforcement authorities before they can make an arrest.  If a suspect's rights are to be restricted or infringed by arresting him/her, a judge or magistrate must confirm that there is enough evidence to justify that interference.  The warrant can also be challenged in court, as can the process leading to its being issued.  If an officer mistakenly asks for a judicial arrest warrant because he/she had unreliable or insufficient information, that can be held against the officer if it comes out in court.  An administrative warrant lacks all such protection - it was (normally) never reviewed by a judge or magistrate before being issued.  In so many words, it's nothing more than a bureaucratic rubber stamp.

I'm firmly of the opinion that illegal aliens should be deported, except for genuine, repeat, genuine, verifiable cases where refugee status might be awarded.  However, regardless of one's perspective on immigration, I think the use of only administrative warrants for mass arrests is legally questionable, and might become a tool of actual oppression if the "wrong people" issue such warrants without judicial scrutiny.  I think ICE may have to reconsider this issue.  Certainly, I'll be more comfortable from legal, moral and ethical perspectives if they do.

At the same time, those opposed to enforcing immigration laws will have to accept that it's a federal government issue, not a state or local issue.  If they want to protest it, there are legal avenues for them to do so.  To physically assault federal officers in the performance of their duties is not one of them;  nor is using state and local laws and regulations to obstruct and interfere with their operations.  Administrative warrants are too often used as an excuse to disrupt such legitimate law enforcement activities, without examining the rights and wrongs involved.

Peter

Bring back the duel?

 

My buddy Lawdog ponders the custom of dueling to resolve differences, and whether it should be brought back.  Go read his thoughts, then come back here.  I'll wait.

I'm in two minds about his ideas.  In the days of the duel, it certainly underlined the relative importance of honesty and civility.  Spread untruths about someone, or be rude and obnoxious to and/or about them, and there might well be a known (and likely) consequence.  The old saw, popularized by Robert Heinlein, that "An armed society is a polite society" was always a fiction, but even so, most people preferred politeness (or at least an icy indifference) to a hot-blooded, potentially fatal meeting on the dueling ground.

On the other hand, there were those who took advantage of the duel to train themselves to be merciless killers.  There are more than a few tales of those who never hesitated to issue a challenge because they knew their own skills were superior to nine out of ten of those they might have to face.  (The few occasions on which they found out, the hard way, that their opponents were, in fact, better fighters than they were produced some gripping tales, particularly the panic and even disgust on their faces as they died.)  In places where custom allowed it, an uncivil, impolite type could hire the services of a noted duelist to represent him, or pay a criminal to concoct a situation in which he could plausibly issue a challenge to someone the principal wanted dead.  This happened too often to be coincidental, and was one of the reasons advanced to do away with dueling.  Could dueling be reinstated without that danger?  I don't know how that could be done.  Cheating, one way or another, is as old as the human race.

Would it make us a less moral people if we allowed dueling?  In some ways, yes, it probably would;  but there's also the grim reality that death is and always has been a part of everyday life, and dueling kept that reality firmly in mind for many of the "talking classes".  It does to this day for those living in areas controlled by "strong men" or "warlords" or particular gangs.  Talk smack about them and you're going to suffer for it, quite possibly terminally - and no, they won't give you the chance to arm yourself and discuss the matter on equal terms.  "Might makes right" is another long-standing human principle.

I submit it would not be a bad thing if we could ensure that false, unjustified "mean speech" has consequences.  Today, too many people behave as if they can insult, denigrate or run down another without ever having to pay for it in any way, shape or form.  I think that's wrong.  If you do that, you should be subject to sanctions of some kind;  but people use the "free speech!" argument to get away scot-free.  Perhaps we should talk about "expensive speech!" instead, to make those who sling insults so freely consider that their words might (and possibly should) carry a price with them.  What that price should be, and who should decide whether and to what extent it applies, and who is to extract payment . . . those are whole new balls of wax to add to the fun.  We certainly can't trust the courts to do the job - they've let politicians lie without let or restraint for donkeys' years.  Some courts appear to be part of the lie themselves.

What say you, readers?

Peter

A mass murderer is unrepentant

 

An article and video at the BBC's Web site has highlighted one of the more horrific mass murderers of the apartheid era in South Africa.  As they emphasize, the perpetrator was tolerated, even encouraged, by the police forces and justice system in that country until it became no longer possible - due to public outrage and a change in the political climate - to do so;  and even then, he received a minimal sentence, with most of his murders being judicially ignored.  I remember his case from that time, and the horror and outrage it aroused in parts of the local community, particularly because he apparently felt no remorse.  He regarded himself as a savior and defender of public order.

Let me start by saying that, in writing about the apartheid era in South Africa, I've frequently run into comments claiming that black people were actually better off under apartheid than they are under the present government there;  that apartheid itself wasn't so bad, and neither were Afrikaners;  and that allegations of mass ill-treatment of black South Africans under apartheid are nothing more than revisionist exaggerations.  I think I answered most of those comments in previous posts.  In particular, see these four:

My heroes

Was apartheid South Africa really that bad?

No, the Afrikaners were NOT "The Heroic White Tribe of Africa"

Defending my thesis about South Africa and the Afrikaners

They put the case of Louis van Schoor and his (at least) 39 victims (he's known to have boasted about shooting 100 or more) into perspective.  He did not act alone.  He was part and parcel of the system of apartheid, and his actions were deemed to be enforcing "law and order" - for the white community, and against the black community.  Here's an excerpt from the article.

Over a three-year period in the 1980s under the country’s racist apartheid system - which imposed a strict hierarchy that privileged white South Africans - Van Schoor shot and killed at least 39 people.

All of his victims were black. The youngest was just 12 years old. The killings occurred in East London, a city in South Africa’s windswept Eastern Cape.

Van Schoor was a security guard at the time, with a contract to protect as many as 70% of white-owned businesses: restaurants, shops, factories and schools. He has long claimed that everyone he killed was a “criminal” who he caught red-handed breaking into these buildings.

“He was a kind of vigilante killer. He was a Dirty Harry character,” says Isa Jacobson, a South African journalist and filmmaker, who has spent 20 years investigating Van Schoor’s case.

“These were intruders who were, in a lot of cases, pretty desperate. Digging through bins, maybe stealing some food… petty criminals.”

Van Schoor’s killings - sometimes several in a single night - struck terror into the black community of East London. Stories spread through the city of a bearded man - nicknamed “whiskers” in the Xhosa language - who made people disappear at night. But his shootings were not carried out in secret.

Every killing between 1986 and 1989 was reported to the police by Van Schoor himself. But the release from prison of anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela in 1990 signalled an end to this impunity. Ripples of change swept across South Africa and, following pressure from activists and journalists, the security guard was arrested in 1991.

Van Schoor’s trial was one of the largest murder trials in South Africa’s history, involving dozens of witnesses and thousands of pages of forensic evidence.

However, the case against him largely collapsed in court. At the time of his trial, much of the apparatus of the apartheid system was still in place within the judiciary. Despite killing at least 39 people, he was only convicted of seven murders. He would go on to serve just 12 years in prison.

His other 32 killings are still classified as “justifiable homicides” by the police.

There's more at the link.

Here's an hour-and-a-quarter-long video documentary about van Schoor.  It's even more chilling than the article.

If you have young people in your family (not too young, of course!), I highly recommend that you show them that video, or let them read the article.  Believe it or not, there are people like van Schoor still alive in the USA today.  They did similar things (although, please God, with a lower body count) in this country during the Civil Rights era, and many were never caught, or charged, or tried.  I've met several of them.  Our young people today need to be forewarned that such barbarism exists, because it's part of human nature, and it can arise again at any time if the conditions turn favorable for it.

May Almighty God have mercy on our souls . . . even, if it is possible, that of Louis van Schoor and those like him . . . and especially of his and their victims.

Peter

Freedom, thy name is... clearly not Canada!

 

A Canadian town has plumbed new depths in the bureaucratic curtailment of individual rights and freedoms.

A Canadian town in the Gulf of St. Lawrence has become the first municipality in the country to officially require a QR code to enter and leave.

Officials say that the requirement of a QR code to enter or leave the archipelago Îles-de-la-Madeleine will only be for tourists, while residents will be required to show their driver’s licence to enter or leave.

The decision to require a QR code and identification for the municipality’s 12,000+ residents came after the municipal government announced they would begin charging all visitors who come to Îles-de-la-Madeleine $30, something which hasn’t gone down well with the locals or their family members who visit them.

Of the many concerns, one that officials sought to address was ensuring that visitors had paid their fees before leaving, hence the introduction of a mandatory QR code to leave the islands. If you don’t pay, you can’t get the QR code and won’t be able to leave.

This was initially intended for residents, too, but following an outpour of criticism, officials backed down and now say that residents only have to show their driver’s licence.

Residents, however, aren’t happy about this either, saying it’s absolutely ludicrous to have to prove their identity whenever they want to leave their homes and go to other places within their own country.

Many have also stated that this is an attack on their Charter Rights, which officials have denied.

There's more at the link.

I can't for the life of me figure out how any city council can dictate to residents and visitors whether or not they may enter and/or leave.  Just who the hell do they think they are?  What happened to individual rights and freedoms?  Where and how do some bureaucrats get the idea that they can be petty dictators like this?  Who gave them the right to insist that the rest of us are at their beck and call?

It's quite amusing to contemplate what would happen in my northern Texas town were our Mayor and Council to try anything similar.  The result would be a short, sharp and somewhat profane discussion between them and the citizens, followed by the use of rails, tar and feathers to indicate to them that they should consider rapid relocation elsewhere.  The local cops certainly would never dream of trying to enforce such an ordinance.  They want to go home after their shifts . . . and they know just how many townsfolk would object, ballistically, to any attempt to apply such restrictions.

Perhaps a bunch of us should plan a visit to Îles-de-la-Madeleine - without bothering to get the QR code on our phones, even if we agree to pay the fee - then dare the local cops to do something about it.  That might make for pay-per-view-level entertainment on local channels.

Peter

Exploiting a crisis, as usual - Israel edition

 

Freedom of speech?  In Israel, apparently, not so much.

Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi is promoting regulations that would allow him to direct police to arrest civilians, remove them from their homes, or seize their property if he believes they have spread information that could harm national morale or served as the basis for enemy propaganda.

According to draft emergency regulations titled "Limiting Aid to the Enemy through Communication" drafted by the communications minister after consultation with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, the jurisdiction to impose limitations on publications will be sweeping.

It will apply to both the general public and the media, as well as both local and foreign media (in contrast to the stated objective to limit Al Jazeera). It will also apply to the publication of factually correct statements, at the minister's discretion.

There's more at the link.

It's not unexpected, of course.  Authoritarians, autocrats and statists all try to use any excuse to increase their control of the people at the expense of individual rights and freedoms.  Looks like Mr. Karhi is no exception.

His proposals are not (yet) law in Israel, of course:  yet they show clearly the authoritarian instinct of the present government there.  They try to dictate solutions, to impose them on the people, rather than persuade them that they're necessary and implement them in a way that minimizes damage to rights and freedoms (and is preferably only temporary, until the crisis passes).

Beware a power grab in a time of crisis.  We saw it in our own country during the COVID-19 crisis.  Even today, some states persist in using that crisis as an excuse to perpetuate their crackdown on civil rights and liberties.  They'll do it again in a heartbeat if the opportunity arises.

Benjamin Franklin warned us:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Now more than ever, we need to heed his words and be alert to the danger of those who want to force us to give up "essential Liberty", using current events as an excuse, a fig-leaf, for their assault on our rights.

Peter

El Salvador, crime, and civil liberties. What does this mean for the USA?

 

An editorial in the Washington Post, normally not a source I'd trust because of its extreme partisanship, does a good job of explaining how societal breakdown can fuel the rise of dictatorial policies - with the full support of the people.

In 2015, El Salvador was the world’s murder capital, with 107 homicides per 100,000 people — as if one of Chicago’s worst neighborhoods was a country unto itself.

Since then, homicide in El Salvador has fallen so far, so fast that its rate now looks comparable to the United States — and the num- bers may still be falling.

Under President Nayib Bukele, the government has shredded basic judicial protections, locking people up on as little basis as tattoos or anonymous phone calls.

The government itself acknowledges having released thousands who were arrested in error. Their number is dwarfed by the number still behind bars.

More than 1% of the country’s population reportedly languishes in prison, unable to secure adequate food, in overcrowded conditions that invite comparisons to “tattooed sardines” or “slices of sandwich bread.”

. . .

In the short term, at least, it seems that savagery has restored order to El Salvador’s streets. And the savagery is incredibly popular; as next year’s election approaches, polls have put [Bukele's] approval ratings as high as 90%, and none of his likely opponents appear to have any chance of an upset.

The reason a quasi-police state looks so good to Salvadorans is that so many of them were already living under a police state, except that it was run by gangs such as MS-13 ... Residents of gang territory had no recourse, because anyone testifying against a gang member risked death. Bukele’s erosion of due process reversed the power dynamic: Now, you don’t have to testify, you just make an anonymous phone call. It put a lot of innocent people in jail, many reportedly in horrific conditions.

. . .

It’s not entirely surprising that the people of El Salvador prefer the official police state to the freelancers. And this is where El Salvador offers a useful lesson to the rest of us: Do not make people choose between human rights and safe streets, because they will choose safe streets every time.

. . .

The best way to keep people from trading civil liberties for civic safety is to not let crime get out of control in the first place.

There's more at the link.

I don't think we'll see the same right-wing, pro-law-and-order approach in the USA, because our society is so divided that I don't believe an electoral approach along those lines can succeed.  A left-wing dictatorial approach is far more feasible, in my opinion, and is already a reality to some extent in our more "progressive" cities such as Philadelphia (see my first article this morning), San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and others.  What's that?  You don't support efforts to combat climate change, or unrestricted immigration, or "reparations for slavery", or soft-on-crime policies?  Then it's the gulag for you, comrade!

In our big cities, I think such pressures are very likely to increase.  Unfortunately, too many residents there have already given up the struggle for law and order, and are keeping their heads down and hoping to survive rather than standing up and being prepared to act.  However, we're seeing increasing pressures in society to act directly against the criminals and their enablers who are directly threatening our society.  It may be that we'll see vigilante violence increasing right along with criminal violence, and in response to it.  I don't want or support that - nobody in his right mind does! - but you can only push people so far before they start to push back.  As the song says, "Try that in a small town" - and it won't stop in small towns, either.

I think that reaction is what's driving a great deal of the effort by the progressive left to disarm Americans.  An unarmed citizenry can't defend themselves against crime and violence, or political oppression for that matter.  An armed, trained, equipped citizenry is another matter entirely.  Politicians can exploit defenseless citizens by promising them security in exchange for their electoral support.  If citizens can provide their own security, and enforce it if necessary, that changes the entire political dynamic - for the better, in my opinion.  As the late, great Jeff Cooper put it in various quotations that I've strung together here:

The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.

An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.

The rifle itself [or handgun, for that matter] has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.

If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim.

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure - and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants.

Since we can no longer trust our law enforcement authorities and agencies to protect us against crime, it's up to us to take steps to protect ourselves, our families and our property.  As the editorial above concludes:  "The best way to keep people from trading civil liberties for civic safety is to not let crime get out of control in the first place."  I agree.  Therefore, let's equip ourselves to protect our civil liberties by defending ourselves against criminals.  That's perhaps the best way to stop dictatorial policies - from any point on the political spectrum - from undermining the values our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us.

As Robert Heinlein postulated:  "An armed society is a polite society."  That's a good place to start.

Peter

Your gun safe, your privacy, and your legal rights

 

A recent arrest has caused raised eyebrows (and stronger reactions) among the community of gun owners.  Here's part of the tweet that started it.  Click the image for a larger view, or follow the preceding link to read the whole thing.

The second-last sentence is the critical one:  "The feds called the manufacturer of his Liberty Gun Safe and got the passcode to get into it too."

The almost universal reaction I've encountered has been, "By what right did Liberty Gun Safe roll over and play along, without informing the owner of the request and without insisting on a search warrant or court order before providing the information?"  (That assumes, of course, that such a warrant or order was not provided by the FBI.  That's not clear from the information provided.)

That's pretty much my reaction, too.  We're dealing with basic legal rights of privacy and Fourth Amendment privilege here.  (Of course, Liberty Gun Safe is hardly the only company that would probably respond to the FBI in the same way.  Corporations hate legal complications.  It's easier for them to provide the information requested and assert "a potential threat to public safety" [a phrase beloved of law enforcement] as a smokescreen to deflect legal complications.)

I suspect Liberty safe sales are going to take a hit after this.  There's already talk of a boycott on some social media outlets.  I'm in the market for a gun safe myself, and after this news I'm certainly going to think long and hard about who I trust with my money.

For those seriously concerned about it, there's a way around the problem:  simply replace your gun safe lock with one you purchased and installed yourself.  In most cases, it's not hard.  You can buy an electronic or mechanical (i.e. combination) Sargent & Greenleaf safe lock online.  Installation instructions are usually available, along with YouTube videos about the process (search YouTube using the model number of the lock you want to install).  Here's one of S&G's own videos about how to do it, and here's a third-party video about replacing a digital safe lock with a S&G combination lock.  Such a step won't stop anyone who really wants to get in and is properly equipped to do so, of course, but it'll make them work harder for it.

(I strongly recommend using a mechanical [combination] lock rather than an electronic unit.  The electronic one is easy to use, fast and convenient, but many of them can also be bypassed by someone who knows what he's doing, and in the event of a disaster such as an EMP attack, they'll be rendered unusable.  It's no good having a safe full of guns and ammo if you can no longer get into it!  As an added bonus, as far as I know, there's no passcode to bypass a mechanical lock once you've changed the combination.  If I'm wrong, please let us know in Comments.)

Meanwhile, take heed, and think about your own situation.  I take my privacy and my legal rights very seriously.  I hope you do, too.

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  Liberty Safe claims that a search warrant was provided.

True dat

 

Found on MeWe (clickit to biggit):

Word.

The solution is to stop surrendering them.  Insist on them.  Demand that they be observed, and passionately resist any attempt to restrict or limit them.

As a wise man once said:

Rights and freedoms are like muscles.  If they're not used, they atrophy.

Peter

France destroys the last vestiges of electronic privacy

 

Last week I published an article titled "Big Brother's unwelcome surveillance tools".  I emphasized that we have no real electronic privacy.  Now France has taken the next step and authorized its law enforcement and prosecution authorities to snoop on any cellphone user in the country.

Amidst ongoing protests in France, the country has just passed a new bill that will allow police to remotely access suspects’ cameras, microphones, and GPS on cell phones and other devices.

As reported by Le Monde, the bill has been criticized by the French people as a “snoopers” charter that allows police unfettered access to the location of its citizens. Moreover, police can activate cameras and microphones to take video and audio recordings of suspects. The bill will reportedly only apply to suspects in crimes that are punishable by a minimum of five years in jail and Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti claimed that the new provision would only affect a few dozen cases per year. During a debate over the bill yesterday, French politicians added an amendment that orders judge approval for any surveillance conducted under the scope of the bill and limits the duration of surveillance to six months, according to Le Monde.

“For organized crime, the police can have access to the sound and image of a device. This concerns any connected device: telephone, speaker microphone, computer camera, computer system of a car... all without the knowledge of the persons concerned,” French advocacy group La Quadrature du Net said in a statement on Twitter last month, machine translated by Gizmodo. “In view of the growing place of digital tools in our lives, accepting the very principle that they are transformed into police auxiliaries without our being aware of it poses a serious problem in our societies.”

There's more at the link.

So, the French government gets to define who's a "suspect".  Given the massive demonstrations across the country against President Macron's pension reforms, that makes any demonstrator or protester potentially a part of the electronic dragnet.  Even carrying a sign or shouting a slogan - perhaps even merely attending a protest - may be enough to make one a "suspect".  There's no First Amendment in France;  no guaranteed civil right to "free" speech.  (Of course, there's not very much left of that right in this country, either, what with the Biden administration openly co-opting Big Tech and social media to crack down on dissenting views - or, at least, their free expression - and encouraging news media to spout propaganda rather than disseminate actual news.)

Big Brother is gorging himself on what remains of the privacy of private citizens, in France, in the USA, and elsewhere too.  Ireland is the most recent European nation to join in the witch-hunt against free speech, and it won't be the last.  Basically, if you intend to speak freely, your privacy will be at best disregarded;  at worst, stripped from you entirely.  Human rights?  What human rights?

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  Grateful thanks to commenter Steve Sky (see below) for bringing a Massachusetts case to our attention.  It seems the state government contracted with Google to install a tracking app on the smartphones of over a million residents as part of its COVID-19 control efforts.  No permission was asked or obtained from any of those on whom this app was foisted.  There's a court case ongoing, and I hope the constitutional rights of individuals are resoundingly affirmed and upheld.

Prophetic words from Václav Havel

 

Many readers will recall Václav Havel, a dissident anti-Communist leader who became President of the Czech Republic after the fall of the Soviet Union.  He was widely respected.  He was also a best-selling author, one of whose books was titled "The Power of the Powerless".  Published in 1985, it became a rallying cry for anti-Communist movements throughout the Warsaw Pact, and is regarded to this day as a seminal work of political philosophy.

Wikipedia says of the book:

The essay dissects the nature of communist regimes of the time, life within such a regime, and how by their very nature such regimes can create dissidents of ordinary citizens. The essay goes on to discuss ideas and possible actions by loose communities of individuals linked by a common cause, such as human-rights petition Charter 77.

Officially suppressed, the essay was circulated in samizdat form and translated into multiple languages. It became a manifesto for dissent in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and other communist regimes.

There's more at the link.

Havel's book remains an inspiration to those trapped in an undemocratic, dictatorial society that brooks no dissent.  Since the politically correct forces in the USA are increasingly turning this country in that direction, we can learn a lot from his wisdom.

Andrew Torba, head honcho of the social media network Gab, agrees.

As I read the essay I was captivated by Havel’s description of what it was like to “live within the lie” of the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia. The parallels between his descriptions of the people, the culture, and the political system of his time were all too familiar to what American right wing dissidents are witnessing and experiencing today.

“The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his or her ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power; and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything.”

Sound familiar?

Havel even accurately describes the phenomena of President Trump and the unfortunate outcome of his attempt to “drain the Swamp,” which ended with him “losing” in a rigged election and becoming a vaccine salesman on behalf of the Swamp itself.

In any case, experience has taught us again and again that this automatism (the Regime) is far more powerful than the will of any individual; and should someone possess a more independent will, he or she must conceal it behind a ritually anonymous mask in order to have an opportunity to enter the power hierarchy at all. And when the individual finally gains a place there and tries to make his or her will felt within it, that automatism, with its enormous inertia, will triumph sooner or later, and either the individual will be ejected by the power structure like a foreign organism, or he or she will be compelled to resign his or her individuality gradually, once again blending with the automatism and becoming its servant, almost indistinguishable from those who preceded him or her and those who will follow.”

Perhaps one of the most stunningly accurate things Havel describes is the Communist society’s utter lack of morality.

The profound crisis of human identity brought on by living within a lie, a crisis which in turn makes such a life possible, certainly possesses a moral dimension as well; it appears, among other things, as a deep moral crisis in society. A person who has been seduced by the consumer value system, whose identity is dissolved in an amalgam of the accoutrements of mass civilization, and who has no roots in the order of being, no sense of responsibility for anything higher than his or her own personal survival, is a demoralized person. The system depends on demoralization, deepens it, is in fact a projection of it into society.

So what is Havel’s solution to this madness?

Not politics. He mentions several times that it’s useless to participate in a rigged political system with fixed outcomes. Instead, he calls for the same thing I am calling for right now: the formation of a parallel systems.

There can be no way around it: no matter how beautiful an alternative political model may be, it can no longer speak to the ‘hidden sphere,’ inspire people and society, call for real political ferment. The real sphere of potential politics in the post-totalitarian system is elsewhere: in the continuing and cruel tension between the complex demands of that system and the aims of life, that is, the elementary need of human beings to live, to a certain extent at least, in harmony with themselves, that is, to live in a bearable way, not to be humiliated by their superiors and officials, not to be continually watched by the police, to be able to express themselves freely, to find an outlet for their creativity, to enjoy legal security, and so on. Anything that touches this field concretely, anything that relates to this fundamental, omnipresent and living tension, will inevitably speak to people.

Abstract projects for an ideal political or economic order do not interest them to anything like the same extent–and rightfully so–not only because everyone knows how little chance they have of succeeding, but also because today people feel that the less political policies are derived from a concrete and human ‘here and now’ and the more they fix their sights on an abstract ‘some day,’ the more easily they can degenerate into new forms of human enslavement.

Again, more at the link.

I have to agree with Mr. Torba.  As our various government structures become increasingly ideologically hidebound to a Left-wing, socialist, even Communist diktat, so we are less and less likely to be able to influence them through elections and other democratic processes.  They ignore our will and seek only to impose their own.  "Government of the people, by the people and for the people" has all but ceased to exist in these United States.

I think Mr. Torba is quite correct to suggest that we draw inspiration from Mr. Havel's wisdom.  If you haven't read "The Power of the Powerless", I highly recommend it.  See also Mr. Havel's life, to learn how he endured under and triumphed over Communist dictatorship in his own country.  I think we can all learn useful lessons from his example.

It's also worth reading Mr. Torba's ideas about setting up parallel institutions, as he's discussed on Gab from time to time.  If we refuse to participate in the structures set up to control us, and instead "vote with our feet" by supporting people and businesses and entities that share our values, we proclaim our independence every day.  That's well worth doing.

Peter

A step that's long overdue

 

I note that former President Trump has spoken out against birthright citizenship.  In this case, I think he's correct.

Former President Donald Trump pledged Tuesday to enact an executive order ending birthright citizenship guarantees for children of illegal aliens if he regains the White House in 2024, despite past constitutional objections and failures to follow through on the move.

Trump, 76, said the agenda for his second nonconsecutive term would end both birthright citizenship and so-called “birth tourism” in the US on his first day in office — a proposal he also floated before and during his first term in the Oval Office.

. . .

“My order will also end the unfair practice known as ‘birth tourism’ where hundreds of thousands of people from all over the planet squat in hotels for their last few weeks of pregnancy to illegitimately and illegally obtain US citizenship for the child, often to later exploit chain migration to jump the line and get green cards for themselves and their family members,” Trump added.

“It’s a practice that’s so horrible and so egregious, but we let it go forward. At least one parent will have to be a citizen or a legal resident in order to qualify.”

There's more at the link.

The problem is, he spoke out against it during his term in office but did nothing to stop it.  The then-Speaker of the House was adamant that it would be an unconstitutional step in the light of the 14th Amendment.  That problem could have been overcome by taking the appropriate measures, but was not further addressed.

I'm an immigrant myself, and am now a proud American citizen, but I jumped through all the legal and regulatory hoops to get there, including supporting myself while going through the process rather than relying on government aid and support.  I think it's unconscionable that so many people use this loophole to short-circuit the process.  Frankly, the United States can't afford the burden they represent on our society.  With literally hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens flooding into our country every month at present, how many of them will have children within a year or two, thereby "anchoring" themselves here despite their illegal presence?

I don't trust politicians' promises.  This one sounds good, but we've heard it before.  Will it be translated into action?  I won't hold my breath...

Peter

Rights? Yeah, right!

 

Sent to me by an anonymous reader:

Blame "special rights" on so-called "identity politics", which emphasizes division at the expense of unity in the body politic.  Same goes for politics in general.  Those who look to divide citizens against one another are seeking to "divide and rule", and (in the process) destroy national unity.

Rights are either universal, for every individual and group, or they're not rights at all - they're privileges.

Peter

This is long overdue!

 

We've discussed in the past how some scientists and doctors are working to include mRNA vaccines in the food we eat, so that with every salad or slice of meat, we'd be vaccinated, whether we liked it or not.

Now Tennessee appears to be considering what I think is the right response to such forced medical procedures.

A bill proposed by Tennessee lawmakers would require any food containing a vaccine to be clearly labeled.

HB 0032, sponsored by Rep. Scott Cepicky, R-Culleoka, and Sen. Joey Hensley, R-Hohenwald, adds new restrictions to the current Tennessee Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which criminalizes adulterating or misbranding food, drugs, devices or cosmetics.

The bill would prohibit manufacturing, delivering and selling food that contains a vaccine or vaccine material unless the food labeling contains a “conspicuous notification” of the presence of the vaccine or vaccine material in the food.

There's more at the link.

I couldn't agree more with this bill.  It's a long way yet from becoming law, but I hope it'll serve as a blueprint for other states to pass their own legislation along similar lines.  I guess it's too much to hope for federal law to be changed in the same way - too many moonbats in Washington, D.C., I'm afraid - but we can dream...

I object violently to anyone trying to medicate me in ways I can't avoid, and even more to anyone trying to sneak-medicate me without my prior knowledge.  I insist on my right to be informed of any and all medications that are proposed for me, and my right to refuse any of them to which I object for any reason at all.  Anything else treats me like a subject, not a citizen;  like a slave, rather than an individual with guaranteed rights.

I hope the Tennessee legislature passes this bill with a quickness, and sets the example for other states to follow.

Peter

A pithy comment from an Oklahoma court on restricting the Second Amendment

 

A tip o' the hat to Sean Smock on MeWe for highlighting this gem from the US District Court for Western Oklahoma.  The court ruled earlier this month that banning gun possession by marijuana users is unconstitutional.

The first caveat, that the prohibition on possession by a felon be longstanding, makes sense. If not for this limitation, a legislature could circumvent the Second Amendment by deeming every crime, no matter how minor, a felony, so as to deprive as many of its citizens of their right to possess a firearm as possible. Imagine a world where the State of New York, to end-run the adverse judgment it received in Bruen, could make mowing one’s lawn a felony so that it could then strip all its newly deemed “felons” of their right to possess a firearm. The label “felony” is simply “too easy for legislatures and prosecutors to manipulate.”

Remarkably, when presented with this lawn-mowing hypothetical argument, and asked if such an approach would be consistent with the Second Amendment, the United States said “yes.” So, in the federal government’s view, a state or the federal government could deem anything at all a felony and then strip those convicted of that felony—no matter how innocuous the conduct—of their fundamental right to possess a firearm. Why? Because courts must defer to a legislature’s judgments about what is and is not a felony, says the United States. It’s as if Bruen’s command regarding the inappropriateness of such deference to legislative judgments has been lost in translation. In a sense, one must applaud the United States for its steadfast commitment to its legal position. But “giv[ing] legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label” is inconsistent with the entire point of constitutionalizing a fundamental right in the first place: to restrain a legislature’s ability to infringe that right through legislation. What would remain of the Second Amendment if the Court were to accept the United States’ view that a legislature could prohibit the exercise of the right it protects simply by declaring anything or everything a felony? Nothing. Maybe that is what the federal government desires, but it is hardly what the Constitution requires.

There's more at the link (pages 22 to 24).

That's a very important point, and a pivotal aspect of the trial in question.  If something can be declared illegal, or a misdemeanor, or a felony, merely by the stroke of a legislative pen, then we have no fundamental rights at all.  All of them exist at the whim of the powers that be, who may or may not be legitimately elected or appointed to office, and may or may not be willing to subordinate their wishes, desires and policies to prior legal restraint such as the provisions of a fundamental, overriding law (i.e. a constitution).

We're seeing this in so many ways that it would be laughable, if it weren't so serious.  It's a worldwide problem.  Take the situation in England, long regarded as the home of free speech.  Two recent reports belie that.

• UK woman arrested for silently praying across from abortion clinic

• UK man fined for silently praying outside abortion clinic

As the first report notes:  "Pro-life advocate Emily Rarick wrote, 'This is absolute madness. How can someone be arrested for praying?' ”  I couldn't agree more.  I'll go further.  It largely depends on whose prayer is considered "politically correct", and whose is not.  I guarantee you, if Muslims (whose religion considers abortion every bit as sinful and wrong as does Christianity) had been praying there, the police would have been conspicuous by their absence.  This is nothing less than official discrimination on the basis of religion.

In the USA, we have the First Amendment to safeguard us from that . . . but will it safeguard us if a government or other entity decrees that prayer of a particular sort, or in a particular place, is not in fact prayer but political speech or action, and therefore subject to regulation?  The same applies to preaching what one's faith says to be the truth.  In Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that "Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’ ".  Here in the USA, the American Civil Liberties Union has gone so far as to claim that religious freedoms are being used as an excuse to discriminate against others on the grounds of sexual orientation and other issues.  In so many words, restrictions are being placed around our constitutional rights and freedoms until they're at best diminished, if not actually regulated out of existence.

Take one's right to self-defense.  There are jurisdictions in the USA today where any attempt to defend oneself against unlawful attack will be regarded as "taking the law into your own hands", or "vigilante justice", or any of a number of loaded terms.  Your odds of being at least charged, if not prosecuted and convicted, for doing so are relatively high, no matter how great your legal justification for your actions.  This makes a mockery of the right that underlies the Second Amendment (defense against unlawful threats, whether from invaders, or criminals, or any other illegal source).  I consider myself very fortunate to live in a state (Texas) where the rights of law-abiding citizens and property owners are given their proper consideration when responding to any criminal act.  However, even here, there are local jurisdictions (e.g. Austin, Houston) where those rights are under attack.

As the time-honored saying reminds us, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance".

More and more government entities, local, state and federal, are trying to do an end-run around the Constitution by passing laws restricting individual rights.  We're going to have to remain ever vigilant to spot them as they arise, and deal with them before they become yet another crippling instrument of oppression in the hands of the "nanny state".

We owe a vote of thanks to US District Judge Patrick Wyrick for standing up for our constitutional rights against such bureaucratic overreach.

Peter

Why Gab is vitally important in the social media sphere

 

I've mentioned on several occasions that I'm a member of Gab, the social media network that emphasizes personal responsibility and free speech.  Gab does not censor its users, apart from violations of the laws and constitution of the USA.  It expects its members to clean up their own online environment by blocking or muting voices they don't want to hear.  I do that on a daily basis, whenever I come across anti-Semitic or Nazi sympathizers and/or propaganda.  Their ideas are invalid in the most fundamental sense, and are alien to any Christian worthy of the name:  so I block every one of them that I find, and even some of the borderline cases.  It's up to me to keep my timeline free of their nonsense.  It's not Gab's responsibility, or anyone else's.  That respects free speech and online freedom at one and the same time.

Gab is open and honest about not censoring its members when it comes to lawful speech.  It rejects demands from elsewhere to shut down users who have committed no crime under US law.  Yesterday it did so again.

Gab is going to begin publishing the purely censorship-based inbound requests that we receive from governments. These are the cases where for the most part European bodies like the Met and Europol send us transparently political takedown requests with no law enforcement purpose. Essentially they’re trying to silence a person that they’ve already thrown in prison or are about to. If they don’t want us to talk about these frivolous requests, they can stop sending them to us.

Welcome to the Gab Files.

Today we received one such request from the UK government.

They cited Public Order Act 1986 which says the following:

(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby

They didn’t tell us who the person is who allegedly broke this dystopian nonsense law, they didn’t tell us whether the content which they convicted him of was found on our site, and they didn’t specify which posts, if any, actually violated UK law.

They simply told us that they imprisoned someone for expressing wrongthink online, that person had a Gab account and the UK government expected us to unperson this person from the Internet at their behest when no violation of our TOS was found.

Gab is an American company which operates its business in accordance with U.S. law. Gab has no business or operations in the United Kingdom of any kind, nor does it inquire as to, or log, the residence or criminal records of its users or readers.

Gab’s policy is to not remove material unless it violates Gab’s terms of service which was drafted in accordance with US law, in particular the First Amendment.

“Hate speech” or “offensive speech” as such is not illegal here and in fact benefits from unambiguous constitutional protection backed by a half-century of precedent.

Our response to the UK is the same as it is to Germany, France, China, and every other country who tries to remove lawful content from the American Internet: get bent.

Let's hear it for Gab!  That's precisely what their response should be.  No violation of US law?  Then no interference with free speech.  I wish other social media companies followed the same policy.

Peter

"Every single nation is getting pounded down, because of globalist extra-national interests"

 

Some weeks ago I wrote an article titled "A totalitarian onslaught against freedom on a worldwide scale".  In it, I said:

There are so many signs of organization behind the current chaos and disorder in the world that I'm forced to the conclusion it's not actually chaos and disorder at all.  It's enemy action:  organized, planned, and being carried out on a scale so vast it's almost unthinkable.  Yet, when one examines the evidence, it's extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion.

If you haven't already read that article, I suggest doing so before continuing here.

Aesop, who blogs over at Raconteur Report, is a controversial figure in the blogosphere.  He's blunt and outspoken, and has made many enemies with his acerbic, cutting remarks.  He and I don't always agree on issues.  However, when it comes to the many crises facing the world right now, I think he sees things as I do.  Here's an excerpt from his latest commentary.  (LANGUAGE WARNING:  It's profane in parts, and I don't normally include foul language in a family-friendly blog like this:  but, in order to let him make his point as bluntly here as he does in the original, I haven't edited it out.)

People want to run around with their hair on fire about "The Joooos!", the Illuminati, Bigfoot, and whatever other silly shit black helicopter chemtrail boogeymen they can concoct.

So follow your own logic for a minute. It isn't all hogwash (most of it, yes, but I've seen no examples of global elite competency to concern me. They're more ham-fistedly inept than Russia, for the most part, just bigger and stronger).

So why go after Russia?

It isn't just Emperor Stumblefuck Poopypants' kickbacks. It's because of Russia itself.

They were ecstatic, happy as a pig in shit, in fact, when Russia was fractured, chaotic, and screwed six ways from Sunday 24/7/365. Chaos brings opportunity. Putin is a thug, an evil dick-tater, and a tactical moron who believed his own military's press releases (and every swinging Richard out there knows that, if they're honest with themselves for 2 seconds), but he has undeniably managed to cobble together some coherence and technological advances despite the handicaps of the entire collapse of his beloved Soviet State. Just like Mussolini made the trains run on time.

And powerful elites simply cannot have that.

It's that simple.

Russia cannot - must not - rise from the ashes.

That's what this has all been about, at the root.

So who wins? And Why?

Not Russia, for a certainty. And they cannot.

Ukraine? Sh'yeah, As If. They'll be eating shit rebuilding for the next generation, minimum, best case. We never told you any differently. Their only win is staying free, but it always comes at a stiff cost.

America? Are you freaking kidding me?? Look around. The societal bore worms are rampaging through whatever cultural bedrock they didn't manage to destroy or rot before 2020, with a will and a vengeance.

Europe? They're even worse off. A Frenchman can't wander Paris in safety, an Englishman's kids are getting groomed and butt-sexed in school, and anyone in Scandinavia has moved from being largely benign and culturally homogenous underpopulated state-socialist "paradise" to outright rape capitols of the entire world.

Asia? Africa? S. America? Give a holler after next year's famines hit the Turd World there (which is most of it), and get back to me.

So. Show of hands: Who here thinks this is all just wild coincidence?

Every single nation is getting pounded down, because of globalist extra-national interests.

Ukraine vs. Russia is just the latest pretext. Exactly like COVID, like unmitigated borderless mass immigration infestation before that, the worldwide destruction of the value of anyone's money before that, and the utter pollution and inversion of every cultural institution: church, school, family, basic morality, and everything else, because some people in position to push a lever here, or point a rudder there, are leaning on those switches with all their might.

Because they're quite simply Evil incarnate.

Morality, liberty, decency, virtue, dignity, independent thought and word and deed, frighten the living Hell out of them, because it takes away their power. They are Shitlords, and those things wash away the dung they thrive in: Chaos, panic, disorder, death, and destruction.

Anything that throws a monkey-wrench in those plans is your ally. 

Anything that furthers it is your enemy.

Liberty, prosperity, and happiness are human exceptions, in all of recorded history, and sedimentary mountains of unrecorded time-space history before that.

Stop sportsball rooting for things that will never be, and pay attention to the whole board being played. While you can still have some effect on the outcome.

There's more at the link.

If you think Aesop and I have got it wrong, and that there's not really a conspiracy afoot, just look at the headlines and scoops that pop up every day.  You want examples?  We've got examples.

• Look at the hidden, devious, subversive way that every one of the 600-odd Federal agencies has been mobilized to "expand citizens’ opportunities to register to vote and to obtain information about, and participate in, the electoral process".  As The Federalist points out, "fully nine months after those plans were due, they are all being hidden from the public, even as evidence is emerging that the election operation is in full swing".  After all the shenanigans and electoral corruption we saw in 2020, who's willing to believe that those agencies aren't being mobilized to perpetrate exactly the same fraud all over again, on an even larger scale?  If you believe that, I can only shake my head at your blithe insouciance.
• Look at how President Biden is so clearly being manipulated and directed every single day.  The poor man's senile.  He can't think for himself, and can't possibly direct the affairs of this country;  yet he's being used as a figurehead for what is, effectively, a third Obama administration.  Want evidence of that?  Here's two photographs of Biden's instructions from his handlers.  Can anyone being so clearly manipulated truly be in charge of anything - even changing his own clothes?  (Click either image for a larger view, and see The Intrepid Reporter's article about them for his own [profane] comments.)

Those aren't the notes of a man in charge.  They're the marching orders he's been given (along with what will appear on his teleprompter).  I wonder how - and how often - they punish him if he doesn't get it right?  And I wonder whether any of those responsible will ever be convicted of elder abuse - as they should be?

So . . . what can we, as individuals, do about it?  We're just so much garbage as far as the Powers That Be are concerned;  there to be used, manipulated, harvested, then discarded.

Nevertheless, there are things we can do.  This corruption is being imposed from the top down.  Resistance will have to grow from the ground up.  There will be no savior coming to rescue us, despite anyone who claims to be such a savior - he or she will almost certainly be yet another distraction thrown at us by the powers that be, in an attempt to make us follow along to the beat of their drum as we become ever more enslaved.  That applies particularly to political parties.  It's more clear every day that we're dealing with a Uniparty - an alliance of politicians from both sides of the political aisle, whose aim is to subject us to their whims and laws and deprive us of our freedom.  Tucker Carlson put it very well the other night.  (If you don't want to watch the video clip below, a transcript is available here.)

We can't rely on any elected politician to save us, or save this country.  Too many of them are not willing to actually represent the wishes of their constituents, instead regarding themselves as members of the privileged club of those who rule.  No, we're going to have to do this without them.  We'll have to act as individuals, and seek out like-minded individuals, and rebuild America one citizen and one family and one alliance at a time.  The rest of the world will have to do the same, because we can't do it for them.

I can only repeat Aesop's warning, and make it my own as well.

Anything that throws a monkey-wrench in those plans is your ally.

Anything that furthers it is your enemy.

Liberty, prosperity, and happiness are human exceptions, in all of recorded history, and sedimentary mountains of unrecorded time-space history before that.

Stop sportsball rooting for things that will never be, and pay attention to the whole board being played. While you can still have some effect on the outcome.

Note, too, that such resistance to oppression will come at a heavy price.  Some of us are already paying it (the January 6th, 2020 protestors, for example).  The rest of us will undoubtedly do so sooner or later.  Oh, well . . . we'll be in good company.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

That's what it's going to take.

We're going to have to stare the Beast straight in the eye, and with all the strength of will we can muster, simply say, "No.  I will not comply."

Our "No" can't be only verbal, either.  Sooner or later, it'll probably have to become a physical as well as a verbal expression.  You've heard of "body language"?  Call this "body politic language".

If enough of us do that, no matter how intimidating the Beast may try to appear, it will be left helpless.

If enough of us fail to do that, the Beast will win.

Which outcome is more likely?

I'd say that's up to us . . . and whether we're willing to pay the price that saying "No" will entail.

Peter

A totalitarian onslaught against freedom on a worldwide scale

 

Novelist Ian Fleming had his James Bond character opine, "Once is happenstance;  twice is coincidence;  three times is enemy action".  That's a yardstick that's been used by many organizations to assess what's going on in the world, whether at war (as Fleming did when he worked for a British military intelligence organization during World War II) or at peace.

There are so many signs of organization behind the current chaos and disorder in the world that I'm forced to the conclusion it's not actually chaos and disorder at all.  It's enemy action:  organized, planned, and being carried out on a scale so vast it's almost unthinkable.  Yet, when one examines the evidence, it's extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion.  Let me lay it out, and see what you think.

I'm going to take several seemingly unrelated issues, examine each of them, then see whether they make more sense in isolation, or as part of an interwoven whole.  Let's start on a smaller scale, with mass shootings in the USA - particularly the Buffalo shooting last weekend.  The shooter's alleged manifesto or proclamation was initially scrubbed from the Internet whenever and wherever it appeared.  However, enough copies were cached that eventually whoever was behind that gave up the attempt, and it's now available from multiple sources.  (See, for example, here, if you're interested.)

The manifesto reads like a wish list from the ATF and other anti-gun campaigners.  Everything they're trying to ban or limit or restrict is listed in laborious, exhaustive detail - far more so than in other shooter manifestos I've read.  It's as if someone carefully prepared this manifesto as the foundation for legislative or regulatory action against those things, as soon as possible after it was made public.  The document also contains large sections of text basically lifted word-for-word from the manifesto of a mass shooting in New Zealand, as if the author couldn't be bothered to come up with his own justification in his own words and did it the lazy way.  Finally, the tone and language and grammar of the document changes multiple times, as though it had been written by multiple persons.  Anyone with linguistic education will pick up on that right away.

There are many more problems with the manifesto that others have uncovered:  see, for example, The Intrepid Reporter's (rather profane) analysis here, or a much shorter comment here.  Suffice it to say that I'm far from convinced that the manifesto is the work of the alleged shooter.  Rather, it looks to have been tailor-made as a springboard for anti-gun, anti-Second-Amendment proceedings.  It's tailored to the needs of its proposed audience, those who support the Biden administration and liberal anti-gun sentiments.  Go read it for yourself, look into the factors I've mentioned, and tell me I'm wrong.  (While you're doing that, consider the FBI's involvement in so many recent "extremist" cases such as the alleged plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan.  I'm hard pressed to think of any such case where the FBI wasn't involved in organizing, aiding or abetting it before it went down.  The Buffalo shooting appears to display similar fingerprints.)

Also, while you're at it, tell me why so many other recent mass shootings perpetrated by non-white criminals have simply dropped out of sight in the mainstream media.  It's as if they aren't newsworthy because their perpetrators aren't of a politically incorrect race.  However, the Buffalo shooting, where a white shooter targeted black victims, is suddenly everywhere in the news.  Yes, I find that suspicious.  It's almost as if it were deliberately being used as a casus belli to whip up minority outrage against other races.  What if there are a couple more such shootings?  Will we see BLM and Antifa lead mobs of rioters and looters on our streets again?  I won't be surprised if we do.

Putting all those factors together, I believe that the powers that be are deliberately cherry-picking incidents and orchestrating the response to them, both in the mainstream media and among minority groups.  They want to use them to foment unrest and violence.

Next, let's look at the impending famine worldwide.  I've written about it often enough in recent weeks (most recently here) that I'm sure you don't need me to recap all the details.  Michael Yon, who's as bearish on the subject as I am (if not more so) - after all, he and I have both seen famine at work at first hand in the Third World, and we know what we're talking about - said last week:

Famine creates famine, as war creates more war, fire creates fire. Famine collapses economies and destroys — physically destroys — critical infrastructure and social order required to produce food. Starvation feedback loop.

For the first time in generations, USA, Japan, and Europe will be unable to help without neglecting their own people. OGUS already is leaving American babies crying in hunger while feeding US-Russia war.

Global genocide is unfolding. Among the educated, only the blind and true conspiracy theorists will miss it. Until it eats them.

There's more at the link.  This morning, he added:

If you study famine now — and there is no time to waste, cancel vacation — you will have a vital roadmap to getting through this. Most famines are amazingly survivable for those who saw it coming and ducked.

There is great value in finding experienced preppers and listening closely. There is also a great value that few talk about — just study history for the patterns.

Be not Afraid — those who study and prepare will talk about this for the rest of their lives.

Again, more at the link.

Mr. Yon speaks of the famine as genocide:  "the deliberate murder of a whole community or race".  Is he wrong?  I'm not so sure he is.  After all, when one looks at the growing worldwide famine, one of the things one can't help but notice is the coordination behind official responses to it.

For example, Kit Knightly sees that coordination in the sudden boosting of genetically modified foods by all and sundry.

The proposed [Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill] ... follows on from DEFRA’s announced “loosened regulation” of genetic research back in January.

To quote the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB), the legislation would “take certain precision breeding techniques out of the scope of restrictive GMO rules”.

Essentially, this would see new “gene-edited” foods as distinct from old-fashioned “genetically modified” foods, and therefore not subject to the same rules and oversight.

. . .

What’s noteworthy is – by pure happenstance, I’m sure – it appears to coincide with a renewed push on the GM food front in other countries all over the world.

In December 2021, Switzerland added an amendment to its moratorium on GMO crops, permitting the use of certain “gene editing” techniques.

Last month, Egypt announced their new strain of GM wheat. Just two days ago, Ethiopia’s National Agricultural Biotechnology Research Center announced they had researched, and the country will now be growing, genetically modified cotton and maize.

Despite Russia’s sweeping ban on the cultivation and/or importing of genetically modified crops, they have nonetheless created a 111 billion Ruble project to create up to 30 varieties of genetically edited plants and farm animals.

Britain’s deregulation of GM food is always described as a “post-Brexit” move – with the EU chided around the world for its “precautionary principle” on GM crops – and yet as long ago as last April, the EU was calling for a “rethink” on GM crops.

In fact, just today, European Biotechnology Magazine reports:

The EU Commission has launched its final consultation on the deregulation of new breeding techniques in agriculture

So, we’re seeing a sudden increase in the variety of GM crops available and a simultaneous push for deregulation of the industry in Western nations.

Why would they be doing this now?

Well, there is a food crisis.

Or, more accurately, they have just created a food crisis. And as the cliched Hegelian dialectic inevitably goes, their manufactured “problem” is now in need of their contrived “solution”.

We should expect to see genetic engineering pitched as a solution to our food crisis in the very near future…like yesterday. Or indeed, two months ago.

That’s how fast they work now, with barely a pretence at concealing the plan. Spitting out the answer so fast they make it obvious they knew the question beforehand.

More at the link.  Do, please, follow the link at "just created a food crisis" and read that article carefully.  The author makes a strong case that what we're seeing today is not accidental, but planned.  If you read further in the article above, you'll find that a coordinated campaign appears to be ongoing in international mainstream media to promote the use of GM seeds and foods, as if to support the new laws and regulations and new strains of seed that are "suddenly" being announced.  Left unspoken is that those who hold the patents on the new GM foods (and who own the farms that grow them) will make yet another fortune, while those who don't use them will be marginalized - perhaps left without food altogether.  It's more than enough to make you think very hard.  The author goes so far as to call it "the next stage of the Great Reset?"

In the second article, Knightly sums up:

In summary…

1. A war which did not need to happen is driving up food and oil prices.

2. Sanctions which did not need to be put in place are also driving up food and oil prices.

3. Western allies are intentionally raising their oil prices.

4. Despite warning of a food crisis, US and UK are paying farmers not to farm.

5. A “bird flu epidemic” very much like the fake Covid “pandemic” is driving up the price of poultry and eggs.

6. Western companies are actively making the fertiliser shortages worse.

7. Bizarre fires are crippling large sections of the US food industry.

Taken individually maybe these points could all be seen as mistakes or coincidences, but when you put them all together it’s not hard to spot the pattern. The press may claim we are “sleepwalking” into a food crisis, but it looks more like they’re running head-first into it.

After years of saying there’s a food shortage on the way, it looks like they might be about to finally actually create one.

More at the link.

I'm looking at the same evidence from the other side of the Atlantic, and I can't dispute Mr. Knightly's analysis at all.  Mr. Yon's allegation that what we're seeing is preparation for genocide looks more and more convincing when you put the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together.

Let's look at the COVID-19 pandemic as another example of an internationally planned conspiracy.  From its obscure origins (which are still being deliberately obfuscated by China and the World Health Organization), to vaccines that have proven anything but effective (but have made billions for those creating and selling them) and have had side-effects that may kill or cripple millions of people, to attempts to cover up the whole mess . . . we all know what's been going on.  Yet, despite their failures, official bodies like the CDC are still trying to reimpose mask mandates that have been proven not to work.  The complete disappearance of influenza cases from world health statistics during 2021-2022 is yet more evidence that an ordinary illness was misdiagnosed as a pandemic - yet few people ever talk about it.  There's so much evidence of conspiracy behind COVID-19 that it's overwhelming, yet the mainstream media resolutely refuse to discuss it.

COVID-19 provided a live experiment in real time of how a manufactured health crisis could be used to control people, to force them to conform to official dictates.  That's why the WHO and numerous governments are currently trying to impose new health care mandates that will override national laws and constitutions, as we discussed a couple of days ago.  Pandemics offer a way to bypass all restrictions on control, destroy individual and national rights and freedoms, and impose a dictatorship of science and health (although in reality they'll just be fronts for the oligarchs and others who are pulling their strings).  We've talked about this before, so I won't bother to go into details again.

(Oh - an interesting twist, in the light of the discussion above on genetically edited, or engineered, or modified foods.  Remember that scientists are trying to add COVID-19 and other vaccines to edible plants.  As you eat your salad, you'll be vaccinated whether you like it or not.  Interesting combination of interests, isn't it?  Scary, too, given the disastrous side-effects of some COVID-19 vaccines . . .)

Let's turn to the policies of the Biden administration - or, at least, what we call the Biden administration.  In reality, of course, it's not his administration at all.  He's senile.  He's not capable of thinking of anything much, let alone policies and governing the country.  He's being manipulated as a "front man" by much more sinister forces behind him.  Elon Musk was absolutely correct when, a couple of days ago, he said that “The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter ... The path to power is the path to the teleprompter.”  Biden's no more than a figurehead.

The policies of the administration are clearly designed to disrupt, if not destroy, the US economy as it's presently structured.  Just look at fuel.  Its price has more than doubled since the administration took office;  vital pipelines have not been approved;  vital drilling permits have not been issued and some existing permits have been canceled.  If they wanted to make fuel more expensive and harder to get, they couldn't possibly have done a better job.

Look at employment.  Unemployment benefits are still so high that it's more cost-effective for blue-collar workers to be unemployed than to find work - but businesses are desperate for workers, and are scrambling to fill vacancies at great cost to themselves.  I'm seeing this at first hand as I struggle to complete renovations and upgrades to our home.  Contractor after contractor has had to postpone coming out here because their staff is so overworked, they have to give priority to bigger and more important customers.  Some have actually turned down my request for a quotation, saying they can't take on any new business because they don't have the staff to do so.  Yet, the administration continues policies that make it more difficult for businesses to employ the people they need.

Look at inflation.  It's not just the current administration that's laid the foundation for what we're currently experiencing:  it's been going on under both Democratic and Republican administrations for years.  However, the past year and a half has seen enormous additional expenditures and outlays that have made the situation much, much worse.  The current administration is responsible for that, and its fiscal recklessness has doubled down on inflation to the point that it's become stagflation.  The economy and the fiscus are being totally, and in my opinion deliberately, mismanaged.  We're all feeling the pain - and it's going to get worse.

I could go on and on about the fecklessness and misguided policies of the administration, except that I no longer believe they're either feckless or misguided.  They're deliberate, IMHO, and what we're seeing in our economy is nothing less than a deliberate attempt to collapse it.  The powers that be appear to believe that they can impose their brutal agenda on this country if they smash it first - and, at least in the "blue" parts of the country, they appear to be succeeding.

Look, too, at the invasion of our country by illegal aliens, aided and abetted by the administration.  Literally millions have swarmed into the USA since the administration took office, and millions more will be coming.  We spoke about the worldwide refugee crisis earlier this week.  It's getting worse by the day, and will continue to do so.  Michael Yon, yesterday:

My estimate: Panama migration corridor will explode in December/January far beyond any historical volumes.

1) Darien area dry season normally begins late December. Migration volume increases annually at this time.

2) Global famines/collapses creating massive HOP — Human Osmotic Pressure.

3) USG is facilitating smooth flows through Darien up to Costa Rica.

Literally millions could come through Panama 2023, and even more in 2024. Especially by bypassing Darien by using boats from Colombia. This thought already is being floated here.

More at the link.

Mr. Yon has already pointed out how the US government and left-wing aid agencies (take a bow, George Soros!) are actively aiding and abetting the flow of illegal aliens through the Darien Gap and Panama to our border with Mexico.  IMHO, it's little less than treason.

A few days ago, Mr. Yon proceeded to link famine to the Darien Gap situation.  Some people (perhaps many) will find his conclusions far-fetched.  I've had all too much experience in the Third World, including real famine.  I don't.

OGUS [Occupying Government of the USA] is setting stage for e-rationing.

Attacking babies with a contrived shortage [of baby formula] evokes emotional anchor to force people into emotional corner.

. . .

Can’t make an omelet without cracking some babies.

Psaki blames ‘hoarders’ for lack of baby formula as she pushes the narrative to send 40 billion more dollars in American labors into the US-Russia war in Ukraine. Accelerating the global famine. A famine on schedule to begin this year and devastate much of the world in 2023-24 and beyond. After that 40 billion, they will demand another harvest of American wealth and blood to defend Ukraine, the country that paid off crack-addict Biden and “The Big Guy.”

Note: All governments always blame hoarders for the food shortages during famine. All. Always. They cause the events. Then blame the victims. They institute price controls, rationing systems, and start raiding homes and others for ‘hoarding.’ Expect raids in the future. Remember they did same with PPE (Personal Protective Equipment like masks and gloves) at outset of pandemic. AFTER the government had depleted strategic inventories Before the pandemic).

This is an attack. We are under attack.

Meanwhile, here in Panama, the Darien Gap is being prepared for a fantastic surge in ‘migration’ later this year. Dry season begins December/January and will coincide with serious onset of famine in areas around the world. Famine will create increased HOP — Human Osmotic Pressure — that will pump massive invasion into United States as our coffers are bled dry, American babies have no formula, and our own food supply thins by the hour.

Predictably, there already are proposals to send American food inventories abroad to assuage famine. This is a fool’s game. At best. At worst this is another form of direct attack. After all, we simply do not have enough food. Period. They will still starve to death a little later, or be energized to move somewhere else such as to America to help Americans starve to death.

The United States is creating condition for actual famine in United States. Famine as in not just food shortages but people eating people and people being eaten by birds.

More at the link.

I could go on, and on, and on, picking on events and trends and incidents and using them to support my case:  but what's the point?  If I haven't given enough evidence already to convince you, you won't change your mind if I provide more.  To my mind, the accumulation of evidence in all these separate areas is utterly convincing when you put them all together.  We are not facing a series of accidents, or coincidences, or unrelated trends.  We're seeing multiple facets of the same threat to our independence, our constitution, our human rights.  We're seeing a totalitarian onslaught against freedom on a worldwide scale.

The USA has always been a beacon of freedom.  Unless we wake up, and do something about this, that will end Real. Soon. Now.

In the light of everything I've discussed, I challenge anyone to tell me I'm wrong, and make a convincing case.  I'm listening.

Peter