Is the housing market poised for a massive correction?

 

Wolf Richter points out that COVID-19-related, legally enforced forbearance on rent payments and mortgage loan repayments has created a hangover of properties that are far in arrears on what's owed.  Those forbearance measures can't continue forever.  When they end, those mortgage defaults may trigger a massive wave of sell-offs in parts of the housing market, which might dramatically reduce property prices and values.

On the other side of the red-hot housing market, a historic delinquency problem has been fermenting since last spring, largely put on ice and on hold by forbearance programs, waiting to be dealt with. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) which insures nearly 8 million high-risk mortgages, reported that the delinquency rate of its mortgages rose to 17.5% in February, up from 17.0% in January, matching the all-time records of September and November last year, according to the AEI’s Housing Center.

. . .

Rumors of perma-forbearance are now floating around, given the multiple extensions of the forbearance programs that no one has any political appetite to let expire. But those are just rumors. Eventually, those programs will end, and then the delinquent mortgages will have to be dealt with.

Borrowers who can do so will resume making payments, either with the missed principal and interest added to the end of the mortgage, or with the lender agreeing to modify the mortgage ... Borrowers who cannot or don’t want to make mortgage payments can sell the home and use the proceeds to pay off the mortgage, including the missed interest payments. If the borrower fails to sell the home and pay off the mortgage, the lender can foreclose and sell the home. In either case, those homes are going to show up on the market.

. . .

But in markets with a large concentration of delinquent FHA mortgages, this would unleash a flood of homes coming on the market – and it would instantly cure, and more than cure, the inventory shortage now being lamented, and when large enough, the sudden supply of homes for sale would send bigger ripple effects through the market.

That’s why no one is eager to let the forbearance programs expire, and why it’s so hard to get out of this extend-and-pretend phase.

The AEI Housing Center identified 10 metros that are most at risk of this sudden supply of homes, with delinquent FHA mortgages showing up on the market ... For example, in the Houston metro (#2), 48,483 FHA mortgages are delinquent, or 22.5% of all FHA mortgages in the market. Of them, 32,224 mortgages are “seriously delinquent.” This creates the potential that tens of thousands of homes flood the market over a relatively short period of time.

And those delinquent mortgages are just FHA-insured mortgages and do not include other delinquent mortgages.

There's more at the link.

If you're a prospective seller at the moment, this implies you should sell your property quickly, before a wave of "default selling" hits the market.  On the other hand, if you're a buyer, you might do better to wait, in the expectation that housing prices will decrease under the impact of forced sales.

If there is a wave of forced selling, I expect major investment firms to take advantage of it to increase their property holdings, as happened after the last housing crisis.  That doesn't bode well for private home ownership, as such firms don't want families to own their own homes.  They want families to rent from them instead, giving them a permanent income stream with less risk than investing in stocks and bonds.

Fortunately, I'm not planning to buy or sell property in the near future, so I can sit back and observe.  Sadly, there are some who don't have that luxury.

Peter

An aviation tragedy in Russia

 

An unplanned, accidental ejection of some or all crew members of a Tupolev Tu-22M3 supersonic jet bomber killed three and injured one person earlier this week.  The Aviationist provides this report, translated from Russian.

In preparation for the training flight, after launching the APU and working with the cockpit equipment, Captain, who is the deputy squadron commander, switched on all CB (Circuit Breakers) on the CB panel with the lever of the console.

At the same time, the system of forced departure of the crew was triggered according to the standard scheme (the commander of the aircraft leaves the plane on his own). When the forced exit system was triggered, four canopy door were dropped and three crew members were ejected. The mechanisms of the ejection seats worked normally, the separation of the crew members and the launching of the rescue parachutes took place normally, but due to the lack of conditions for safely leaving the aircraft (speed less than 130 km / h), the parachutes were not filled.

Three crew members were fatally injured when they fell onto the concrete surface of the aircraft parking lot at high vertical speed.

There's more at the link.  It's not yet known whether the aircraft commander accidentally activated the ejection sequence, or whether a malfunction triggered the ejection.

The Drive provides additional information.

The crew of four in the Tu-22M3 consists of two pilots seated side-by-side in front, with the navigator and weapons system officer seated behind them. All the crew members are provided with KT-1M ejection seats and the aircraft commander is also able to initiate the ejection sequence for the other crew members — according to Interfax, this was the case in today’s incident. However, these seats require a minimum speed of 80 miles per hour for safe ejection at altitudes below 200 feet. The Tu-22M3 has a typical takeoff speed of 230 miles per hour.

This would be in line with the aforementioned reports suggesting the ejections occurred after the engines had started but while the bomber was stationary. Even if the aircraft were taxiing, it would not have been moving fast enough to ensure the safe extraction of the crew. Modern combat aircraft are typically fitted with “zero-zero” ejection seats, which have no minimum speed or altitude criteria for safe use.

Again, more at the link.

The Tu-22 has been heavily modernized and updated since its introduction into service in the 1970's.  Sadly, it appears its ejection seats were not upgraded to the latest standards as part of that.

Peter

Gun bans: preparing for the inevitable?

 

Following my article yesterday about gun control, I've had a number of queries from people who believe that a gun ban - partial or full - is inevitable, thanks to demographics and political trends.  They believe that relying on constitutional protections is illogical and irrelevant, because the powers that be will simply ignore those protections.  Sadly, they may be right.

For those wishing to prepare for such an eventuality, I recommend a series of three articles published on SurvivalBlog a few years ago.

I hasten to point out that the steps outlined in those articles are legal under current United States law.  If that law changes, they may no longer be legal.  For the record, it's your responsibility to ensure that you remain in compliance with current law.

Legalese accomplished, on to the articles.

Preparing for the Inevitable American Gun Ban - Part 1

A full gun ban in the United States is inevitable. Any honest reading of the cultural, legal, and demographic trends in the United States will confirm this thesis ... ultimately, we will lose the fight because this isn’t your grandfather’s America anymore ...

. . .

You will have a choice to make– obey the law or become a felon. That decision will change your relationship with the government permanently. If you comply, you risk exposure to crime and unlawful government force. If you resist, you will become an outlaw. This article seeks to prepare you for that fateful day.

Preparing for the Inevitable American Gun Ban- Part 2

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) requires the registration of fully-automatic firearms, suppressors, short barreled rifles, and short barreled shotguns ... the vast majority of gun owners would not risk the penalty to possess an unregistered NFA item, and for good reason; the rewards aren’t worth the risk. Accordingly, most NFA items were dutifully registered in the various amnesty periods that were offered by the Federal government ... [Under a new gun ban] I propose that most “responsible gun owners” will register their weapons, just like their grandfathers did in 1934 and 1968. You will, too.

. . .

it is my belief that reasonable and fully legal action now is a wise course of action, given the strong possibility that a dramatic change to gun regulation is inevitable. The next section will provide guidance on how to protect your gun collection from future registration and confiscation.

Preparing for the Inevitable American Gun Ban- Part 3

In order for any registration scheme to work, transfers between individuals without government participation cannot be allowed. Once the ability to anonymously purchase a firearm is eliminated, their confiscation/registration scheme is viable.

. . .

Plain Jane is the order of the day for your off-the-books collection. Keep it common and keep it simple ... Think about your needs and the needs of your heirs in this future world, and take action now to prepare yourself.

I recommend all three articles for your consideration.  Also on SurvivalBlog, you'll find an article titled "The Mathematics of Countering Tyranny", with further suggestions.  I don't agree with all that the author says, but you'll have to make that judgment for yourself.  It's worth reading.

Peter

Yet again, would-be gun-banners ignore reality. Will they never learn?

 

In the wake of the Colorado mass murder a few days ago, there are renewed, strident and vociferous calls from the center and left of US politics for more gun control.  Yet again, those making them are refusing to acknowledge a simple, basic fact that fatally undermines their calls:

You can't blame the instrument for the crime.  You blame the criminal using it.

This is unarguably and always true.  Consider:

• When a drunk driver hits innocent pedestrians, and kills or injures them, who's charged with the crime - the driver, or his vehicle?
• When a gunman kills innocent victims, who's charged with the crime - the shooter, or his firearm?
• When somebody high on drugs attacks innocent passersby, who's charged with the crime - the attacker, or the drugs he used?

One could go on ad nauseam, but you get the point.  The perpetrator bears responsibility for the crime - not the instrument(s) used to commit it.

Anti-gunners argue, "But if he didn't have access to a firearm, he couldn't have committed the crime!  This boils down to public safety!"  It's tempting to agree, because they're partly right:  without a gun, the perpetrator could not have committed the massacre in that way.  However, there are many other ways that could have been used.  Consider:

• The worst school massacre in US history - at Bath, Michigan, killing 44 and injuring 58 - involved explosives, not guns.
• The worst nightclub massacre in US history - the Happy Land disaster in New York City, killing 87 - was perpetrated by arson, not gunfire.
• Almost all the most prolific serial killers in the world, with a "score" probably running well into four figures between them, did not use firearms to commit their crimes.

The crime is not dependent on or conditioned upon the instrument(s) used to commit it.  To focus on the instrument, rather than the perpetrator, is to defy reality.

Let's look at an editorial in the New York Post, a conservative, right-wing outlet that's normally more level-headed than this.  I'll insert numbers in parentheses after key points, and address those points below.

The New York Post does not see this as a conservative or liberal issue — it’s an issue of life and death. Curbing guns is what led to New York City’s three-decade reduction in murders (1). And, sadly, it’s the dismissal of that progress that has led to a rise in shootings here (2).

. . .

And while not all mass shooters use long guns, let alone semi-automatic ones, that’s been the favorite weapon of these killers for years now (3).

. . .

When they enshrined the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers could not have conceived of high-capacity magazines (4). Hunting and home protection are one thing — but what civilian needs an AR-15 (5)?

The Supreme Court has ruled the Constitution protects guns “in common use,” not weapons of war (6). Our forefathers did not want every American to be capable of mass slaughter (7).

. . .

Start by writing an assault-weapon ban that focuses on firepower — rate of fire, muzzle velocity, and so on (8). Then move on to tighter, universal background checks, etc., reasonable waiting periods and all the rest.

And, yes oh yes, make it easier for families to get help for their troubled loved ones, first by taking away their guns, then by getting them the mental-health services they need (9).

There's more at the link.

All right, let's address each of those numbered points.

1. Curbing guns did NOT lead to a reduction in murders in NYC.  Restrictions on firearms in that city long predate the reduction.  What did it was beefed-up law enforcement, particularly the emphasis on "broken windows policing".  It's noteworthy that as NYC law enforcement has been progressively scaled back under politically correct pressure, the murder rate is shooting up once more (you should pardon the expression).
2. The same gun laws are still in effect in NYC - in that sense, "progress" has not been "dismissed".  Nevertheless, shootings and murders in the city are rising rapidly.  Whatever is causing the latter, it's not a change in gun restrictions.
3. Long guns (rifles and shotguns), semi-auto or otherwise, have not been "the favorite weapons of these killers for years now".  Crime statistics give the lie to that.  Handguns were involved in 78% of mass shootings, with other weapons used in the remaining 22%.  However, long gun use in more recent mass murders is increasing.  "Of the last 80 mass shootings in the United States, more than a quarter, including Monday's shooting in Boulder, Colorado, involved the use of AR-15 rifles."  Nevertheless, over 70% of those mass shootings still did not involve such weapons.
4. Agreed - but so what?  When they enshrined the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers could not have conceived of high-capacity computer printers, or electronic books, or any number of other modern technologies.  Does that mean the First Amendment, with its guarantees of freedom of speech, the press, etc., should be confined to quill pens and cast lead type?  Of course it doesn't!  Why, then, should modern technology restrict the Second Amendment?  If technology restricts one Amendment, it must necessarily restrict them all - a plainly nonsensical proposition.
5. "What civilian needs an AR-15?"  Why not ask those who were confronted by Antifa and BLM rioters last year?  If I were among them, I'd have been ready to stop them attacking me, or my loved ones, or my home - and an AR-15 rifle would have been my principle method of defense, because no other weapon at my disposal would have been as effective in dealing with a criminal mob.  It's not just defense, either.  I know hunters who go out after hogs and deer carrying AR-15's chambered for various cartridges.  They rely on them to put meat on the table.  Repeated, rapid shots at fast-moving animals like a running hog require a rifle capable of making them (note that the video at the link shows the hunter using an AR-15-style rifle).  Q.E.D.
6. "The Supreme Court has ruled the Constitution protects guns 'in common use,' not weapons of war."  Precisely!  The muskets and rifles in use at the time of the Declaration of Independence were weapons of war, and also "in common use"!  The American Revolutionaries used them to see off the British - and thereafter, just as before the war, used precisely the same weapons to defend themselves against raiding Indians and criminals, and to hunt meat for their tables.  Today, the AR-15 and weapons of its type are "guns in common use", both in the military (in selective-fire versions) and in civilian hands, without the selective-fire feature.  Therefore, by this criterion, they, too, are protected by the constitution.
7. "Our forefathers did not want every American to be capable of mass slaughter."  I absolutely agree - but that capability does not depend on the instruments that may be to hand.  It depends on the sanity, morality and judgment of the individual.  Go re-read the list posted above, of the worst crimes of their kind in America and the world.  They were not committed with firearms - but they were, nevertheless, committed.  The availability (or otherwise) of firearms had no bearing on that.  Yes, firearms can be a tool in the hands of the wicked;  but they can also be a tool in the hands of the good, to stop the wicked in their tracks.  (Never forget that in several incidents, most notably the Sutherland Springs church shooting, the perpetrator, using an AR-15, was shot and stopped by a courageous civilian, also using an AR-15.)
8. A "assault-weapon ban that focuses on firepower" is a non-starter.  For a start, define "firepower".  Rate of fire?  Yes, an AR-15 - and an AK-47, and a M1 Garand, and many other weapons - is capable of rapid fire;  but nobody has suggested (yet) that the M1 Garand should be classified as an "assault weapon".  The same applies to semi-auto civilian rifles such as the Remington 7400 or Browning BAR.  They can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, but neither is classified as a military weapon or "assault rifle".  What about muzzle velocity?  There are plenty of rifles with significantly higher muzzle velocity than an AR-15.  For example, the civilian .220 Swift, developed before World War II, achieves muzzle velocities of over 4,500 feet per second, about 50% higher than the AR-15's 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge - but the former has never been used in a military weapon.  The same sort of analysis can be applied to almost any criterion.  A "brute-force" solution, arbitrarily classifying one or more criteria, alone or in combination, as defining an "assault weapon", is neither logical nor rational.
9. First take their guns, then get them the medical help they need?  We're talking about a constitutional right here.  If someone is declared medically or mentally incompetent to exercise that right, I have no problem taking their guns away from them, for the safety of their family and society - but to do so before such incompetence is formally evaluated and pronounced upon by qualified persons?  The possibilities for abuse are almost endless.  We've all heard of divorce cases where one or both parties allege monstrous abuses by the other, none of which can be substantiated in court.  What's to stop an estranged spouse making such allegations against his or her partner, resulting in the other losing their firearms at once, without any evaluation as to whether the allegations are correct?  What if the one making the allegations is just waiting for the other to be disarmed, so they can attack them?  The same problem exists with so-called "red flag" laws.  They act as if someone is "guilty" before their "guilt" has been established - a direct violation of the "innocent until proven guilty" principle on which US jurisprudence is based.  Some argue that this is necessary for reasons of public safety.  I'm not so sure - and it violates long-standing judicial and legal precedent.

So, there we have it.  For every point the New York Post editorial makes, there's a logical, rational, reasonable response.  The problem is, the gun-banners aren't interested in such responses.  They're reacting out of emotion, out of "feelings" - and, let's be honest, out of fear.  They're usually the kind of people who rely on "the cops" or "the authorities" to protect them against crime, rather than accept personal responsibility for initial protection.  They've probably never been confronted by the naked reality of violence and crime.

I have been confronted by that reality, far too often for comfort.  As a result, I'm more than willing to defend myself and my loved ones and my property.  I will not, repeat, will not allow others to take away my constitutional rights, and I will defend those rights against any attempt to do so.  I know many Americans feel the same.  That's the crux of the matter.  I have committed no crime, and my AR-15 has not been used to commit any crime - so why should I be penalized, and my rifle taken from me, because of the criminal actions of somebody else?  I've done nothing to deserve that, and I won't stand for it.

It's time the gun-grabbers realized that what they like to think of as their "irresistible force" has run headlong into the "immovable object" of the US constitution and the rights it recognizes - not confers, but recognizes as pre-existing.  The right to keep and bear arms is among them.  Any attempt to say that this, or that, or the other firearm isn't covered by that right leads to a very slippery legal slope indeed, where the same criterion might be applied to diminish or disable any other civil right.  They should think about that . . . very, very carefully.

I'll let Phil at Bustedknuckles sum up the matter.  As he points out, the latest gun-grabber moves are not unexpected . . . but they may lead to consequences their supporters neither expect nor like.

I’d say it’s a safe bet that out of a couple hundred MILLION “Evil Black Rifles” in this country, almost none of them will just magically turn into dust and disappear anytime soon no matter how badly the stupid ******* wish they would.

. . .

I have been watching our economy blow up like a drowned pig in a hot swamp for years now.

The fact that they are intentionally destroying it is yet another thing they aren’t bothering to hide anymore.

I’m thinking that “Evil Black Rifle” they want to get from you so badly might wind up being worth more than just about anything you own right at the moment here in the not too distant future.

It might be the only thing that keeps you alive in the long run.

It’s a sure bet at this point that these dumbasses are feeling Froggy enough to jump and foolish enough to **** Around And Find Out.

. . .

This is going to wind up being a fight to the death and it’s going to be Winner Take All.

Because you can’t ban what is already out there. You might as well try banning the wind.

And what is already out there is more personal firepower than all the major armies on the planet combined.

All owned and operated by the single most obstinate and devious people the world has ever known.

People that used to be Americans.

Since they killed that too, we are basically a people without a country right at the moment.

It’s The United States Of America in name only at this point.

Just another little score that needs to be settled.

I literally predicted a hot Civil War in this country was coming ten years ago.

Place yer bets gentlemen, the game is fixing to start pretty soon.

It's hard to disagree with him.

Peter

A Hong Kong activist shows dissidents how to cover their tracks

 

It's sad to think that normal, ordinary, everyday Americans who respect what our Founding Fathers wrought, and want to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same", may have to "duck and cover" to do that in this politically correct day and age.  To be identified as "moderate" or "conservative" in many US cities and towns these days is to invite at least shunning, if not active retaliation.  The progressive left appears bound and determined to demonize anyone and everyone who won't subscribe to their pathetic, overreaching, domineering credo.  "Resistance is futile!  You will be assimilated!" appears to be their war cry.

That being the case, a series of tweets from a democracy advocate in Hong Kong advises fellow activists on how to remain relatively anonymous and unidentified in their struggle against the Chinese Communist Party and its state organs.  I'll put up three of them as examples.  Click each image for a larger view.

There are a dozen or so tweets in all.  If you prefer a single-page consolidation of all of them, without graphics or visual interruptions, Threadreader has it here.

Based on my own knowledge of "opsec", which was fairly extensive in its pre-Internet, pre-cell-phone day but is somewhat out-of-date now, Ms. Wong offers good advice.  If you live in a part of the USA where being anything but progressive or left-wing will attract opprobrium, they're useful guidelines to follow.

Peter

Quote of the day

 

(A tip o' the hat to Diogenes' Middle Finger for bringing it to our attention.)

From the Would-Be Galactic Emperor, blogging at My Planet, My Rules:

If you gather enough truly stupid people together in the same place, the resulting flash from the explosion of asshole can be seen in distant galaxies.

Of course, this begs for verification through experimentation.  I suggest we start on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., where the accumulation of stupidity has to be seen to be believed!  Add the Biden administration into the mix, and throw in the city's loony-left leadership, and that should be enough to produce some absolutely splendid spontaneous combustion, even on an intergalactic scale.

Peter

Too cute!

 

I had to laugh at this video clip of a baby tasting chocolate for the first time.

Talk about enthusiasm!

Peter

Artificial - but real - honey, milk and eggs???

 

The BBC reports that a number of startups are trying to produce honey, milk and eggs - or products that are molecularly identical to them - without any animal components at all.

Over the last few years, plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy have become increasingly widespread. However, for many, they simply don't come up to scratch in terms of flavour, texture or ease of use.

But now, a number of start-up companies, like MeliBio, are looking to use fermentation to produce vegan products that are identical biologically to the real thing.

Through the process of fermentation, micro-organisms digest a food supply and excrete a useful product - yeast, for example, is fed sugars and produces alcohol to make beer.

But by tailoring the micro-organism carefully and choosing the right feed stocks, it's possible to create a different end product - anything from honey, to egg whites, to milk.

One company taking this approach is Better Dairy, a London-based start-up developing milk and cheese through yeast fermentation.

"The way it works is that you can use yeast in the way that we use yeast for beer brewing - but we tweak the yeast so that instead of producing beer, it produces what we want it to produce," says Jevan Nagarajah, co-founder and chief executive.

"So the technology is using yeast as a conversion platform from the input sugars and the things that you'd usually feed it, and turning that into dairy, in our case."

Similar techniques are being used to produce egg whites, with San Francisco-based Clara Foods on the brink of mass production and hoping to become the world's largest egg protein producer by 2028.

. . .

Meanwhile, the world's appetite for honey is harming many species of bee, says Mr Mandich.

"Commercial beekeeping is favouring a single bee species, the honey bee, all over the world to meet the rising demand for honey," he says. "They are actively competing with wild and native bee species and pushing them back."

. . .

One issue with commercialisation will be labelling - are these products really milk, eggs or honey? The companies are hopeful that the authorities will see it that way.

"It is molecularly identical, so it should be the same," says Mr Nagarajah. "But if we have to choose a different name, so be it."

There's more at the link.

This is really intriguing.  Something like Beyond Meat and its competitors aren't meat at all.  They're a mish-mash of ingredients and processing that produces something tasting like meat, but chemically and molecularly very different from it.  I have no intention of trying them, because I have no idea what their ingredients and processing might do to my body in the longer term.  However, a product that's molecularly identical to the animal-sourced original . . . that would be a real game-changer.  It would mean you could cook two products side-by-side on the same stove or grill, one animal and one artificial, and not be able to distinguish them from each other, scientifically or otherwise.

That could provide real environmental benefits, getting rid of egg "battery farming" and allowing apiaries to serve a conservation function as well as food production.  The latter case is of particular interest to me, thanks to my friendship with Sean of Killer Bees Honey in North Carolina (of which I've written in these pages before).  He - or, rather, his bees, whom he refers to as his "ladies" - makes the finest honey I've ever tasted, so much so that Miss D. and I are regular customers.  It's won national and international awards and recognition.

Recently, Sean wrote about his efforts to upgrade his apiary for inclusion in North Carolina's Wildlife Conservation Lands Program.

Clint Barden, the wildlife conservation biologist (District 8 - Division of Wildlife Management) has been guiding us in developing our property into a sustainable wildlife refuge for insects and their vertebrate forest brethren.

It’s been a journey. Back In 2016, we began utilizing the US & NC Forest Service for controlled burns on our property. Over the years we have employed mechanical fuel reduction strategies to clear invasive plants like rhododendron, and replace them with several thousand native plants. Hopefully at the end of this year our 75 acres will qualify for the WCLP. We are doing this to be a better steward of the land, to be a way station for migrating pollinators and birds. A better place not just for visitors like us, but a home for generations of insects and animals that pollinate 90% of the surrounding Pisgah Forest and the adjacent Southern Appalachian Mountains.

Again, more at the link.

I sent Sean the link to the BBC article quoted above.  He applauds the idea as a way to satisfy demand without overstraining our bees or our natural resources.  He'll still go on producing some of the finest honey in the world, of course, for the premium market;  but if high-quality honey can be made more accessible and more affordable, it may help end the large-scale adulteration of honey that presently threatens our health.  (If you go on a tour of Killer Bees Honey, Sean and his wife will show you how to tell pure honey from adulterated.  It's an eye-opener.)

At any rate, this development will bear watching.

Peter

Is the Biden administration deliberately trying to undermine the fifty States?

 

According to an article at Wirepoints, titled "Mass Federalization: How Washington is Bailing Out Failed States, Decapitating Competitive Ones and Ending America As You Knew It", it looks that way.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

An astonishingly sweeping, radical movement to level cities and states is underway, propping up the failures and pounding down those that have been successful. Most everything is being federalized. The role of cities and states as we have known them – as laboratories of democracy – is being eviscerated. It’s being financed by both the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve bank, which are now joined at the hip in fiscal profligacy.

Much of it is proceeding under the false labels of pandemic relief and fiscal stimulus. It’s happening at such a rapid pace that the paper of record for government overreach, The Washington Post, fears that “the sheer volume of new programs threatens to swamp federal agencies.”

It’s a fundamental and historic remake of America, though its impact hasn’t yet come close to sinking in. Some of the numbers that follow seem beyond belief, but they are real. If claiming that pending legislation will destroy America as you know it seems like exaggeration, read on to see what its supporters say, because it’s their commentary that is most revealing.

The plan to federalize government is already moving and has three parts:

• Flood every unit of local government with federal cash, irrespective of need, while prohibiting tax cuts, thereby bailing out failing states and cities.
• Make that flood of federal money made regular and permanent.
• Annul or override state laws that make certain states competitive, thereby eliminating their competitive advantages, and federalize elections to make it all permanent.

. . .

Start with the recently signed ARP, the American Rescue Plan. Its scope is under-reported and the public is unaware. Having been routinely styled as coronavirus relief or economic stimulus, it’s perhaps the most blatant bait-and-switch in American history ... But ARP together with federal money already delivered is about $6 trillion! Even if you want to count everything, the bailout total is 7.7x the size of the problem [caused by COVID-19], wrote Stockman.

Don’t think that might ease your state and local tax burden. The downpour of cash on cities and states, most of which don’t need it, is all tied to a provision in ARP that bans tax cuts. It’s a mandate for statism – big government – whether states with small government philosophies like it or not.

“Thou shalt be statists and big spenders,” that’s what ARP might as well say as a direct federal mandate.

. . .

K-12 education, higher education, welfare programs, reparations and more – it’s all to be federalized and made permanent, subject to federal rules ... Based only on the things Democrats have said they want to make permanent, the total cost of ARP would, over ten years, reach $4.1 trillion with interest, according to the Committee for a Responsible Budget.

Bailing out public pensions would add more to the bill, and that’s in the cards, too.

. . .

Keep taxing and spending as you have been – that’s the universal mandate under ARP – then also spend the cash the federal government is dropping like manna from heaven. Today’s well-run states will thereby loose much of their competitive advantage.

Additional pending federal legislation specifically aims to deprive thriving states of what has given them comparatively advantage.

First, there’s the what the Wall Street Journal called the most radical pro-union labor bill since the 1935, which would erase right-to-work laws in 27 states.

A federal gun control law has already passed the House.

Finally, and most importantly, there’s perhaps the most pernicious bill proposed in modern history: H.R. 1, the “For the People Act.”

It would strip state governments and local election boards of power to run our elections, federalizing the election process. It would mandate same-day and automatic voter registration, and encourage vote trafficking of absentee ballots. It would be the end of voter ID laws and restrict efforts to verify voter registration lists. It would create a public funding program for candidates running for Congress. It would put new regulations on political speech and activity, by activists, candidates, civic groups, corporations and nonprofit organizations. Membership in organizations the left doesn’t like would be disclosed, leading to harassment and intimidation.

. . .

The average American is no doubt unaware of how extreme all of this is, and how quickly it is moving ... Make no mistake about the historical gravity of what is taking place. States as the laboratories of democracy are being shut down and replaced with a national juggernaut more overbearing than most Americans have ever imagined.

There's more at the link.

I wish this article were alarmist . . . but it's not.  Every fact I've checked from it has been confirmed.  I invite you to do so for yourself, if you wish.  This really is a deliberate, planned effort to federalize the United States, so that it no longer matters whether the states are united or not - they'll just be minor appendages to the Union, of no further political significance.

Needless to say, this is also a deliberate effort to destroy the structure that our Founding Fathers put in place.

All I can say is, we have to fight this at every turn.  It matters not whether Congress passes laws to that effect and the President signs them.  We need to elect State governments that will fight them tooth and nail in the court system, and if that isn't enough, they'll flatly refuse to cooperate and insist that their constitutional rights and privileges be respected.

If we, and the States, don't do that, then the United States of America will effectively be turned into the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America.  May God preserve us from that!

Peter

The "shadow government" that's currently running the USA

 

I think James Kunstler puts his finger on the crux of our national problem right now.

Who or what is this shadow government? I’d say it amounts to a small group around former president Obama and former attorney general Eric Holder, plus a coterie of Intel Community figures led by John Brennan, all awkwardly funneling instructions through Susan Rice to the hacks in the White House, who form a flimsy cocoon around the barely-pulsating organism within: Mr. Biden. I will boldly suggest that this cabal is actually controlling the executive branch of the government, and doing it with stunning incompetence. If it sounds like a conspiracy, that’s probably because it is a conspiracy.

What were those crimes of theirs? Mainly the actions they took the past four years to cover-up their intense and sedulous ongoing corruption of previous years, especially all the channels of moneygrubbing that ran from Wall Street and K Street through the halls of Congress, and secondarily their political agenda to destroy by any means necessary the opposition vested in a weak and ineffectual Republican Party at odds with its own elected leader, Mr. Trump.

The “means” turned out to be one dishonest exploit after another aimed at disabling and eliminating the uncontrollable Mr. Trump: RussiaGate, the Flynn case, the Mueller Investigation, Ukraine Phone Call Gate (impeachment No. 1), Coronavirus hysteria, identity politics hysteria (including the 2020 summer riots), the social media companies’ censorship and “cancellation” initiative, and, finally, the engineered ballot fraud in the 2020 national election, with a re-play in the Georgia senatorial special election of January, 2021. How did you miss all this?

. . .

People-of-color and the gender-muddled were useful idiots in the game to bamboozle the public, and were allowed to turn their own grievances into lucrative hustles. Thus, everything became a “racist” and “sexist” boobytrap used to nullify anybody seeing through this game, while garnering new social advantages and large sums of money for the aggrieved, especially the Black Lives Matter org.

All of these cynical power games were, and still are, playing out against the very real collapse of America’s economy and culture. That is the part of the story that nobody controls or can even hope to control. The manufacturing part of the economy has been going-going-gone for forty years, but Coronavirus paranoia has been mobilized to destroy any remaining small business or service, leaving the shell of a commercial sector represented only by rapacious chain stores. The oil industry is on the ropes, confounded by the high costs of getting shale oil out of the ground and the shortage of investor money for an obviously profitless activity. All that’s really left are the financial rackets tied to the Federal Reserve and Wall Street — and they amount to the sheerest vapor given the de-linking of capital formation from genuine productive activity.

. . .

Pretty soon, the game will be up. The election fraud story won’t go away against all efforts to suppress it. The shadow government will get outed as the nation sinks deeper into economic and civil disorder, and some people will have to do something.

There's more at the link.

(For one view of who's behind the "shadow government", see "Who is shaking the jar?"  It's a compelling analysis.)

Biden is a disaster that's getting worse and worse by the day.  His incoherent mumblings have alienated many of our allies, and made him - and, by extension, the USA - the laughing-stock of the rest of the world.  Foreign news media openly describe (and mock) his obvious disconnect from reality.  He's not capable of making decisions;  those are being made for him by a person or persons unknown.  That's clearly unconstitutional and illegal, but no-one in his administration gives a damn about such piddling little irregularities.  After all, they control the reins of power.  Why should they care?

I suspect those pulling the reins are going to find it harder and harder to actually accomplish anything.  They'll meet increasing headwinds from overseas, particularly from China and Russia - and I don't blame the latter in the slightest.  When their chief rival is so clearly led by incompetent buffoons, why shouldn't they take advantage?  We'd do precisely the same thing, if we were in their shoes.

Domestically, they're in a bind as well.  If they did the honorable (and constitutional) thing, and removed Biden from office under the 25th Amendment, and let Vice-President Kamala Harris take his place, they'd lose her casting vote in the Senate.  They couldn't be sure of passing their cherished legislative agenda - indeed, they couldn't even be sure that the Senate would approve her replacement as Vice-President.  As a result, they're desperately propping up Biden.  They can't do without Harris' vote in the Senate - but by keeping Biden in office, they're making things worse for themselves by the day.  It's a no-win situation.

The tragedy is, they appear more than willing to utterly trash this nation and all it stands for, just so long as they can get away with their shenanigans.  It's going to take years - perhaps decades - to recover from the damage they've already done.  How much more damage will we allow them to do before we say, "Enough!"?

Peter

Personal defense firearms: more questions from readers

 

Following last week's article about personal defense rifles, a number of readers sent in questions and comments.  I thought I'd respond to some of them here.

Assuming I have an adequate defensive rifle, what's the most important modification I can make to it to improve performance?

I addressed this in the first of three articles about personal defense rifles last year.  Please see it for a list of things to look for.  If I had to prioritize features I want in a weapon (handgun or rifle), I'd stress the following, in this order.

1. Reliability.  The weapon must go "Bang!" every time I pull the trigger.  If it's not reliable with your chosen defensive ammo - in other words, it fires 100 times out of 100 - it's not good enough to trust your life to it.  I choose weapons, magazines and ammo, and test them in combination, until I'm satisfied they're as reliable as it's possible to make them - and I'll still practice malfunction drills, just in case.  Send your firearm to a gunsmith for repair or modification if necessary, and replace it if he can't find or solve the problem(s).  Reliability is absolutely critical, and overrides all other criteria for selecting a defensive firearm.
2. Shootability.  This includes the correct length of pull for a long gun, good sights, and a good trigger.  Iron sights are not to be sneezed at for those with good eyesight, particularly over short to medium ranges - wars have mostly been fought with such rifles in the past.  High-tech electronic sights and bullet-drop-compensating reticles are all very well, but a flat battery or breakage or malfunction can sideline them all at the drop of a hat.  A good trigger is worth gold, IMHO, in a handgun as much as a rifle.  I discussed that last year.  I'd fit a better trigger even before looking for a better sight.  It can dramatically reduce your group size.
3. Training.  This isn't a "modification" as such, but it's every bit as essential as fitting the right gear to your weapon.  I never cease to be astonished at the number of gun owners who buy a gun, only to put it away in a drawer and never (or hardly ever) shoot the thing.  Shooting is a perishable skill.  If it's not exercised, it'll atrophy.  Most competent shooters I know average at least 50 rounds per month, if not more - and that's not to mention top competitive shooters, who'll go through tens of thousands of rounds a year.  If you can't afford to do that with full-power defensive ammo, get a .22LR equivalent to your weapon (or even an Airsoft or BB replica) and train with that, as we discussed some years ago.  It'll pay dividends if you ever have to defend your life for real.

What's the smallest, most compact, easily concealable handgun I can buy?

You're asking the wrong question.  It should be, "What's the smallest, most compact handgun that I can control in rapid, aimed defensive fire?"  There are several handguns that are so small as to be tiny (e.g. Ruger's LCP II, Keltec's P32 and P3AT, North American Arms' mini-revolvers and pistols, etc.).  I used to carry the small Rugers or Keltecs in the past.  However, I've grown older.  They were always uncomfortable to shoot, and today I find them impossible to shoot well at further than halitosis range.  Their tiny sights are so hard to see with my aging eyes that they're no longer a good choice for me.  The smallest firearm I currently carry (as a backup, in my pocket) is a Glock 42 pistol or a Smith & Wesson 442 or 642 revolver, which are slightly larger and (I find) easier to handle.  I much prefer something larger, when I can conceal it.

Remember, the object of carrying a gun is to defend your life, and the lives of your loved ones, in an emergency.  If the gun you're carrying is hard to shoot fast and accurately, your defensive ability is diminished - perhaps fatally so.  Test-fire several models before you decide what to buy (a shooting range that rents out different models of firearms is a good place to start, or friends who own different guns and are willing to let you try them).  Function and fitness for purpose comes first.  Only after you're sure of both should you consider whether the gun is "small enough" or "concealable enough".

As Clint Smith has pointedly observed:

Carrying a gun is not supposed to be comfortable; it’s supposed to be comforting. The gun that’s with you is better than the one that’s home in the safe.

Good point!

If the Biden administration is going to outlaw most defensive rifles and large-capacity magazines, why should I buy one?  I'll only have to hand it over, or go to jail!

For a start, any gun or magazine ban will undoubtedly be challenged in the courts on constitutional grounds.  It'll probably take years for it to get to the Supreme Court, which has already made several rulings (e.g. Heller, McDonald, Caetano, etc.) that should limit the scope and effect of a ban.  If the authorities try to enforce new laws before such adjudication, I fully expect that restraining orders will be imposed on them until the result is known.

There's also a long, rich tradition of civil disobedience in this country.  When New York passed highly restrictive firearm legislation, including requiring the registration of so-called "assault weapons", the vast majority of its residents refused to comply.  The same thing happened in Connecticut.  If national legislation is passed along the same lines, I have little doubt that gun-owners across the USA will do likewise.  Yes, there's a risk of prosecution if that happens:  but the civil rights for which our Founding Fathers fought so hard are not to be given up lightly.  If the authorities take matters too far, I daresay some of them will learn the hard way how seriously ordinary Americans take such matters.

Guns and ammunition are so expensive right now that I simply can't afford them!

What's your life worth?

If you can afford to spend money every month on cosmetic procedures (e.g. hairdo's, nail salons, etc.), or can afford to eat out once or twice a week, or can buy more than necessities (e.g. fashion items, etc.), then you have excess income that you could save towards the purchase of a firearm and ammunition.  It's up to you to decide where your priorities lie.

Some of the poorest individuals I know have acquired the means to defend themselves.  Consider:

• A lowly machete can be had for as little as $5.99 at Harbor Freight.  It can be kept handy at home, in case someone kicks in the door.  (In the sort of places where many poor people live, this can be more than just a theoretical risk.)
• A used short-barreled pump-action shotgun (and even some new models, if you shop around) can be found for well under $200 in many places, including a box or two of ammunition.  It makes a great home defense weapon.  (Just a few weeks ago, I picked up a Mossberg 500 12ga. shotgun for only $125 - a heck of a bargain, to be sure, but they are out there if you look for them.  I don't need it - I don't use shotguns much anymore, thanks to my back injury - but sooner or later, I'm certain I'll run into a friend who does.)
• A cheap handgun or carbine such as those offered by Hi-Point may look clunky, and be regarded with disdain by more affluent shooters, but I've seldom seen them malfunction.  Some can be had for under $200.  If that's all you can afford right now, buy it until you can afford better.

You don't necessarily have to pay cash at all.  True story:  one man I know mowed and edged his neighbor's lawn all through one long, hot Texas summer, and in the fall received as payment a personal defense rifle. He did the same the following year, and earned a shotgun and ammunition. The third year he earned a 9mm pistol. This year, he's working for more ammunition. He's built up a useful defensive collection, all paid for with sweat equity. Good for him!

My parents never needed a gun.  Why should I?

I can't be sure whether you will or not.  However, I think we're in for a torrid time over the next few months.

• Antifa and BLM aren't going away, and are openly threatening to carry on with their violent street "demonstrations" (a.k.a. riots) if sufficiently progressive legislation isn't enacted fast enough to suit them.
• The Biden administration may work hand in glove with social pressure groups, to use the influence they can exert to assist in getting its policies through Congress.
• High-profile court cases, such as those arising from the death of George Floyd, may escalate interracial tension.
• The so-called "urban underclass" in many American cities is increasingly turning to crime and violence to get what they want.  See the crime statistics over the past year or two for evidence of this.  Some are calling it the "Minneapolis Effect".  It shows no sign of decreasing - rather, the opposite.

If you live near a concentration of such problems, you can expect to encounter them more often in the foreseeable future.  Under such circumstances, if you're not ready, willing and able to defend yourself and your loved ones, you're an accident waiting to happen.  You're a victim waiting on a crime.  You're a defenseless target.

Don't be any of those things.  Prepare yourself as best you can to defend what's near and dear to you.

Peter

OK, I guess Icelanders are . . . different!

 

Ask the average American what he or she would be doing in the event of a nearby volcanic eruption, and I suppose the answers would include "Panic!", "Run like hell!", or "Pray".  In Iceland, apparently, it's "None of the above".  Its residents appear to regard a new-born volcano as an excuse for a road trip to see it for themselves - and would you believe their volcanologists apparently view red-hot lava as an opportunity for a cookout?

The BBC reports:

Thousands have flocked to a volcano in Iceland which erupted near the capital, Reykjavik.

Lava started to burst through a crack in Mount Fagradalsfjall on Friday evening, in the first eruption of its kind in more than 800 years.

The site was initially blocked off, but from Saturday afternoon people were allowed to make the trek.

"It's absolutely breath-taking," Ulvar Kari Johannsson, a 21-year-old engineer, told the AFP news agency.

"It smells pretty bad. For me what was surprising was the colours of the orange: much, much deeper than what one would expect," he added.

Scientists at the foot of the volcano were filmed cooking sausages on its lava as they studied the eruption.

There's more at the link, including several photographs of the crowd of onlookers.

My initial reaction was to ask my wife, "What about the food hygiene aspects of cooking hot dogs on bare naked rock?"  Miss D. just rolled her eyes at me, and pointed out that the temperature of that bare naked rock was so high that no self-respecting germ could survive on it - so why was I worrying?  I could only nod in agreement, and laugh.

Where most of us would be ducking and covering, or headed as fast as we could go in the other direction, the Icelanders treat a new volcano as an excuse for a holiday.  Good for them - as long as it doesn't really blow its top and incinerate them all, along with their hot dogs!

Peter

Socialized medicine in all but name

 

The latest health care proposals by the Biden administration may be the nail in the coffin of independent health care in this country.  It looks as if we're about to have socialized medicine forced down our throats, whether we like it or not.

American health care is not about sick patients and their interactions with doctors and hospitals.  Far from it.  It is about power and money, with two of the four major players who currently split the loot rapidly losing their future place at the table.  The major player, the Democratically run federal government and its entitlement programs, will soon be expanding control from 60% to 95% of our health care.  Insurance companies that are funded as an employment benefit will no longer exist with the federal takeover.  Neither will the health care conglomerates with their hospitals and employee physicians.  Unsurprisingly, the medical malpractice edifice will continue to thrive.

Health care has been used by both political parties in their struggle for votes.  But the Republicans have apparently ceded the issue to the Democrats, no one brave enough to fight a government takeover for fear of being labelled non-caring.  The Republicans have agreed with the Democrats that we are just too stupid to understand things like health care savings accounts.  They are too cowed by politics to propose legislation that could encourage purchase of insurance across state lines.  It is apparently too much for them to allow insurance pooling of high-risk individuals.  With most of the lawmakers being lawyers, tort reform is not happening.  Sensible ways to bring down costs and allowing us to make informed decisions are just too complicated for us dumb yokels.

When the Democrats take over health care, insurance companies could exist only as a middleman in the government Ponzi scheme.  There is no reason to have insurance if pre-existing conditions are not a factor.  Actuaries, those employed by insurance companies to balance risk and profit, will not be necessary.  In their place, the government will just have an open pocketbook, printing increasingly worthless money to pay for service while relying on bureaucratic inefficiencies to provide a barrier between patients and their doctors.  Less access means less cost.  Just ask the National Health Service in Great Britain.

. . .

Since 11% of American workers are employed in the health care sector, 24% of government spending goes toward health care, 8.1% of consumer spending is for medical care, and 26% of non-wage compensation is for health care insurance, it could be argued that this is the most consequential part of the economy.

There's more at the link.

The real problem with socialized medicine is that it's predicated on how much government can afford to spend for it.  In every single country where it's been implemented, one can see a very clear progression of priorities.  Because each health care dollar has to be stretched as far as possible, a philosophy of "the greatest good to the greatest number" has to be applied.  Areas that are low-cost-per-individual are prioritized.  In South Africa, for example, after the end of apartheid, it became a priority to bring primary health care to as many of the formerly under-served black population as possible.  I have no problem with that - but to fund it, secondary and tertiary health care (more complex surgeries, cancer treatments, etc.) was starved of funding.  A nation that had performed the world's first heart transplant is now substantially below average as far as publicly funded advanced health services are concerned.  It has a private health care sector that offers the most advanced treatments, but they're so expensive that relatively few people can afford them.

Around the world, public health systems face the same dilemma.  Areas of medicine that are high-cost-per-individual find that there isn't enough money available for them.  See, for example, the "Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient" in the UK, which focused on ending the lives of those patients as expeditiously as possible rather than treating their diseases.  See, too, the emphasis on providing euthanasia "services" in several countries (including unsubtle encouragement to use them - see, for example, this recent experience from Canada), or even the involuntary, forced "euthanasia" of some patients (which should more accurately be described as murder).  In every case, I doubt very much that the emphasis is on the needs and desires of the patient.  Instead, it's on costing the state-subsidized medical services as little as possible.  A dead patient (particularly an older patient, who will likely cost more to treat than a younger person) is a lot less expensive than a live one!

I fear that we're going to see more and more of that in the USA, as government seeks to hold down its soaring health care costs.  As I get older, particularly because I don't have enough money to be independent of some form of insurance for health care, that's not a comforting thought!

Peter

"What do you mean, you won't RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!!!???"

 

(For those who don't recognize the demand in the headline, see here.)

The more one reads about the "power grabs", the bureaucratic overreach and disdain for people's rights exhibited by left-wing, progressive administrations across this country, the more one realizes that we have to stand up to them.  I don't know where they got the idea that they can rule over any and every aspect of our lives, but it's long gone time they were disabused of that notion.

I'm therefore heartened by the ongoing saga of Tinhorn Flats restaurant in Burbank, California.

The Burbank city Council of Ninnies, like most other municipal governments in Democrat-controlled states, ordered all restaurants to be shut on December 6, during the most recent "surge." This included outdoor dining, even after restaurants had invested tens of thousands of dollars each into proper safety measures and taking other steps necessary to actually serve food outside.

Need we mention the absurdity of banning outdoor dining at all?

Tinhorn Flats is a family-owned and operated bar and restaurant that has been operating in Burbank for many years.  The owners decided on December 10 to stay open regardless of any government order to shut, and has been serving outdoors since then.  Their health permit was revoked December 12.

And they stayed open!  Huzzah!

. . .

From December 13 to February 9, the L.A. County Department of Health cited the restaurant for 36 separate days operating on a "suspended public health permit."

Tinhorn Flats stayed open.  Patriots like myself visited, ate food, and had beers.

On January 12, the LA County Attorney issued a cease-and-desist letter.

Tinhorn Flats stayed open. Patriots like myself visited, ate food, and had beers.

Two weeks later, the county filed a lawsuit for violating the "emergency health orders" and "abatement of public nuisance." Apparently not satisfied with simply suspending the public health permit, the county also took the extra step of actually revoking the permit.

Tinhorn Flats stayed open. Patriots like myself visited, ate food, and had beers.

Then the Burbank City Council of Ninnies revoked the conditional use permit that allowed Tinhorn Flats to operate on February 22.

Tinhorn Flats stayed open, etc, etc.

A week later the Burbank City Council of Ninnies filed a lawsuit for violating the municipal code, and the week after that the L.A. County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order against the restaurant.

Tinhorn Flats stayed open, etc, etc.

Here's the best part: a few days ago, the Burbank City Council of Ninnies told a kangaroo-court hearing, in which it was obvious they had already made up their minds, demanding that the restaurant stop serving. A few days later, they cut power to the restaurant.

So what happened? Patriots and patrons donated generators and other gear so that the restaurant could continue to operate. And customers are still coming to the restaurant.

We’re not done yet. The Burbank City Council of Ninnies ordered the doors of the restaurant to be locked. It just so happens that Tinhorn Flats is famous for its swinging doors, like the saloons of the Old West.  They cover those over at night with two large doors – which they REMOVED to prevent them from being padlocked!

Somehow, the next day, the doors reappeared and were padlocked, and so was the side entrance. Tinhorn Flats then posted picture on their Facebook page showing the side door was open, that they were open for business, and that anyone could come. As I write this article, on the evening of St. Patrick's Day, the place is hopping and packed both indoors and outdoors. I had a wonderful burger and fries there today.

By the way, all of this followed an order by another L.A. County judge requiring the county to show evidence that the ban was necessary.  This the county failed to do,  but the judge sadly didn’t overturn the ban.  Yet it was this ruling that bolstered Tinhorn Flats’ position that every step being taken against the restaurant was illegal.

As the owner of Tinhorn Flats has publicly said, this has nothing to do with safety, but fear and control. Their mantra is "we will not comply." These four words should stir the hearts and souls of every freedom – loving American.

There is nothing special about the five petty tyrants on the City Council.  As we've learned over the past year, politicians have no special knowledge of, and absolutely no clue about, epidemiology or how to have properly managed this "pandemic." This is about fear and control, and a group of five power-mad individuals who want to assert their authority over others.

. . .

These petty tyrants don't seem to realize that they have awakened a sleeping tiger. People from all over the city are patronizing the restaurant. Support is pouring in from all over the country.

Nor do they realize that nothing will stop me or anyone else from patronizing this business.  We are the ocean of freedom and we will flow around any obstacles in our way.

There's more at the link.

The latest development is that the City Council has ordered the padlocks removed from the doors, ostensibly for "public safety" reasons.

In a press release issued today, the city of Burbank says:

"After monitoring social media posts and seeing numerous people inside the locked building, the City Manager and City Attorney directed Burbank Fire along with Burbank Police to visit the establishment. Upon verification of people inside, the City unlocked the front door as this was the only responsible action to protect human life.

"Tin Horn Flats continues to be irresponsible in their actions. Last night's reckless behavior reflects a lack of concern for their patrons' wellbeing. They continue to care more about defying the Court's Orders than the health and safety of the community,' said City Manager Justin Hess."

2021 is young but to say that Tinhorn Flats is in flagrant violation of local laws, public health decrees and multiple court might be the understatement of the year.

. . .

At this point, is there any food-related regulatory agency in Los Angeles County that isn't trying to shut down Tinhorn Flats — or at least make it comply with public health orders?

The Old West-themed bar and restaurant has spent months fighting them all and, so far, it appears to be winning... and by winning we mean it has stayed open.

Again, more at the link.

If Tinhorn Flats were in our part of the world, its owners' attitude would meet with even more widespread approval - and probably support from fully-armed patrons, determined to resist bureaucratic overreach.  If I know our local law enforcement agencies, their members would make up a significant proportion of the restaurant's patrons!

I don't know whether this will end well for the restaurant's owners.  Bureaucrats and administrators in California - at least the progressive, left-wing, liberal parts of California - appear to have little common sense, even less empathy, and no sense of humor whatsoever.  I daresay they have their knives out for the owners, and will do their best to make them pay for their defiance.

Nevertheless, I can only applaud that defiance.  Patrons who choose to go there do so of their own free will, fully informed of the risks involved.  They're voting with their feet and their wallets.  When prohibitions and regulations are so manifestly nonsensical from a medical standpoint, why should anybody obey them?  I'm sick and tired of the Karens who pontificate that we should trust the authorities and do what they say, when the contrast between lockdown states, and those who chose to give their people greater freedom to decide for themselves, is so marked.  The "OBEY OR ELSE!!!" states are almost uniformly worse off in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic - some dramatically so - than the states that implemented more relaxed measures.  That says it all, right there.  To hell with the Nanny State!

If I were in or near Burbank, I'd be dining at Tinhorn Flats every day, in order to display two lifted fingers (and my teeth) to the city council.  As it is, I've sent a donation to the owners.  They deserve our support, IMHO.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 50

 

Gathered from the Internet over the past week.  Click the images for a larger view.

(Actually, in 1876 it would have been his buggy's or his wagon's warranty, but let's not quibble!)

More next week.

Peter