The Progressive Influence on the State – The Progressive Pandemic

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?

A great many of us in this country do not deserve the honor implicit in these words from our National Anthem. And there are many others in this country who actually despise the values inherent in these words. The pandemic trauma of the last two years has been brutally revelatory in what it has shown of our collective lack of courage and character.

Land of the free? We have experienced in this pandemic a comprehensive destruction of our liberties, including restriction of movement, confinement, denial of religious services and the right to assemble, and coerced injection with dangerous, inadequately tested, experimental “vaccines.” All of this was done in the name of a false “common good:” a common good based only on the supposed efficacy of the vaccines and the futile mitigation measures; a common good which included no assessment of the societal impacts of the mitigation measures, such as suicide and mental health issues, child development issues, or economic issues; a common good calculation which failed to factor in the minimal impact of the disease to the great majority of the population; a common good calculation which employed distorted death rates; and a common good calculation which unbelievably and purposely ignored any medical treatment other than the “vaccines.”

Home of the brave? We appear now to be driven by fear. It is difficult to assess which is worse: the assault on our liberties, or the weak and timid way in which most of us have accepted it. Of all of the travesties that we have endured during this last two years, this has got to be the worst: the realization that our vaunted American independence is nothing but a sham. How bitterly disappointing, how very disheartening, how wretchedly tragic.

Among those who look to their faith as the foundation of their lives, perhaps the greatest disappointment in all of this miserable American covid spectacle has to be reserved for the failure of the Catholic Church to challenge government overreach throughout the pandemic. This failure is aptly demonstrated by the USCCB statement on Covid-19, issued in March of 2021, about a year after the pandemic started. [1] Our bishops, dedicated to the most important mission of all, the salvation of souls, apparently dismissed any consideration of spiritual health as restrictive mandates were decreed, and focused merely on physical suffering, accepting without question the government view of the efficacy of the vaccines, other mandates, and the danger of the virus, and even expanding upon the government’s progressivism by advocating globalist support of a false common good. There is not a single line in that document addressing the critical importance of freedom of religion or the damage done by coercive government mandates to that freedom.

This exposed American frailty, exacerbated by the lack of spiritual support from the Church, is bad enough: but another, more ominous, measure of plunging moral decline has surfaced during this pandemic: the ugly strain of tyrannical behavior which has been manifested in various sectors of our society over the past two years. And I speak not just of federal, state, and local governments. Corporations, teachers unions, the press, big tech and social media, academia, the medical establishment – leadership elites across the board – have all suppressed the free expression of information and activities opposing the party line dictated by the Democrat government and permanent government ruling class. Many otherwise ordinary citizens have taken it upon themselves to physically and verbally attack other citizens who do not toe the party line. The speed with which so many citizens have jumped on the coercion bandwagon is alarming. For two years there has been very little resistance to these totalitarian tendencies suddenly materializing amongst what was once a fiercely independent people who prized above all else the liberty to think and act with independence. I formerly thought that the “struggle sessions” and the indoctrination that happen in Communist countries could never happen here in the land of the free and the home of the brave: now, it is all too evident that such oppression could indeed become a permanent part of the social fabric of our ostensibly free country.

We are witnessing a troubling convergence: a weak, rudderless populace meekly obeisant to an imperious ruling class. This convergence feeds and nourishes the massively dysfunctional autocratic governance we are now experiencing, which is usually found in third world countries not enjoying the rights of a constitutional republic. It probably indicates that the progressive left has finally managed to inflict a critical mass of injuries to our constitutional protections: a critical mass of injuries so severe that we will not now be able to fully recover or maintain our once-cherished rights.

There is currently a certain amount of optimism among conservatives, since the utter ineptitude of the feloniously installed current administration has become obvious even to the most oblivious of citizens. So the political portents bode well for conservatives in the 2022 midterm elections. But I wonder whether that will be a mere political victory of relatively short term value. Even if Republicans take majorities in the Congress, that will not change the underying content of the American character. A Republican victory will likely be driven by such things as inflation and the economy, but will not be reflective of any loyalty to conservative principles such as liberty or independence.

So here is what concerns me. Given the pervasive American infirmity that has now been revealed, what can be expected when the next extended disaster occurs? Autocratic governments and corporations and other power-brokers now have the roadmaps for the implementation of despotism in place and ready to be executed should the the opportunity arise. Let’s say, for example, that the Peoples Republic of China succeeds in engineering a virus which, unlike SARS-CoV-2, is actually really dangerous, a virus which is both highly contagious and also dangerous to a large rather than small percentage of the population. Or suppose the Russians succeed in crippling the U. S. electrical grid with a cyber-attack or an EMP attack, thereby disrupting critical requirements of daily life such as the food supply and utilities. Or – it is not hard to imagine – the current U. S. administration continues to frivolously fulminate about “climate change” and “Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity” issues, and thereby drives the U. S. into a prolonged and devastating economic depression which can also disrupt essential aspects of life. Scenarios like these are not unlikely at all, and will provide new excuses for progressive elites to exercise their totalitarian inclinations. And that could be just around the next fateful corner.

References.

1. Public Affairs Office. “USCCB Administrative Committee Release a Pastoral Message on the COVID-19 Global Pandemic.” USCCB:News:2021. March 9, 2021. https://www.usccb.org/news/2021/us-conference-catholic-bishops-administrative-committee-releases-pastoral-message-covid

The Escalation of the Progressive Attack on Speech

The progressive assault on speech is entering a new and more sinister phase, advancing beyond censorship by social media companies and crossing the line into government censorship. This new phase is aptly characterized in a January article found in Defense One, entitled “Regulate Social Media Companies.” The article commingles many different errant ideas, but its most disturbing attribute is the reckless way in which various sorts of speech formerly considered to be free are suddenly judged to be subject to progressive discipline. Take the very first sentence, for example:

“The events of January 6 showed existing approaches to quell disinformation and incitements to violence on social media platforms have failed, badly.”
[1]

The first thing to be noted in this sentence is the mischaracterization of the origins of the January 6^th Capitol protests and the dismissal of the legitimate concerns with election fraud held by much of the U. S. electorate. But beyond that bit of chicanery, of greater concern is the underlying mindset displayed here, which conflates both disinformation and incitements to violence as examples of prohibited speech. While incitement to violence is clearly prohibited in the U. S., disinformation is nothing of the sort. Terms like disinformation suffer from a critical malady, which is that someone must define them for any given issue. And since every issue has at least two sides, then one side’s definition is not by itself sufficient. All sides must be represented in the free and public exchange of views.

The Demise of the Republican Establishment

The mainstream media, big tech, and the establishment political parties are spending the day today expressing their outrage against President Trump for continuing to attack the 2020 election fraud and encouraging his supporters to demonstrate at the capitol yesterday. While such anger is a popular and entirely predictable preoccupation for these groups, it really has nothing to do with holding the President accountable for dangerous rhetoric.

That stentorious wrath is actually all about two things: pure and unadulterated vengeance against President Trump for managing to disrupt the political establishment for four years; and the effort to damage him for the future. Why an effort to damage him for the future? Because Democrat and Republican establishments alike realize that the President is the single most formidable candidate for the 2024 elections, and anything they can do now to remove him from the scene is to their political advantage.

Amidst all of this indignation, one important fact is being missed: the frustration expressed by President Trump is not simply his alone. The establishment elites completely fail to understand this. President Trump speaks for a very large percentage of the country, and therefore, the baseless attacks proceeding against him today are also attacks upon those who support him. Among those supporters must be realistically included the 80 million or so (I am counting the votes which were fraudulently deprived from the President) citizens who voted for him (since we all know that non-citizens voted exclusively for Biden).

Blank Stare Jurisprudence, Lethargic Law Enforcement, and Blind-eye Journalism: The 2020 Presidential Election

If you had the misfortune to be a long-time San Diego Chargers fan, you know well the sick feeling you got when the Chargers began to sit on a lead in the fourth quarter, and they commenced three and out run plays on offense, along with something called the “prevent defense.” And you knew before it happened: they were going to lose again.

The very same feeling engulfed me on election night, when the vote counts in the key swing states mysteriously stopped updating, and then later, on the morning of November 4^th as huge numbers of votes came rolling in for Biden, and suddenly the President’s commanding lead in those swing states was lost. You didn’t want to acknowledge it, but you couldn’t avoid the certainty: something had gone grievously wrong, and your team was going to lose.

It is apparent now, two months later, that massive fraud [1] happened that night, on a scale never before attempted in an American election. The evidence is overwhelming, including: a thousand affidavits [2] signed under penalty of perjury by election observers describing every type of election malfeasance imaginable; video evidence [3] of hidden ballots counted in Georgia without observers present; statistical analyses of wildly improbable vote spikes and vote ratios [4] in Biden’s favor coming late in the morning after those inexplicable voting shutdowns [5] in the key swing states; and computer forensics analyses [6] of Dominion Systems in Antrim County, Michigan, revealing a system which flagged 68% of all votes as having errors. The implications of such a high error level are devastating to the integrity of the election:

Trafalgar 2020 Swing State Polls Signal Election Fraud

In 2020, as in 2016, the Trafalgar Group provided accurate presidential election polls for the swing states. However, despite remarkably consistent precision, Trafalgar’s win predictions for the swing states were, on average, incorrect. At the same time, the conventional pollsters, even though far less precise, were correct as to their predictions for the winner in the swing states. This seems on the surface to be rather anomalous: why would the more precise pollster get the wrong overall answer?

One answer to this question could be that fraud conducted during the election occurred on such a large scale that the resulting distortion of the vote caused otherwise very accurate polling to appear to be wrong, when it really was not. There is already plenty of evidence that substantial election fraud occurred, especially in the swing states. [1,2] In particular, the numerical analyses of voting patterns are quite disturbing. [3,4,5] The purpose of this article is to show that Trafalgar polling was better in the swing states Trump won, and significantly worse in swing states Trump lost. Similarly, the reverse was true for the conventional pollsters. Both of these circumstances support the hypothesis of election fraud, since this sort of polling dichotomy would not be expected for pollsters who routinely produce consistent results. Election fraud could explain this unanticipated difference, because it would cause the “actual” vote to depart significantly from accurate pre-election polls.

Is President Trump Really That Far Behind?

Updated 11/02/2020

It is now the day before the election, and the professional progressive political prognosticators are still predicting an overwhelming victory for the Democrat candidate, just as they so wrongly did in 2016. And once again, that pesky Trafalgar Group, which correctly predicted almost the exact electoral college vote in 2016, is producing swing state polls which are not in line with the main stream polling consensus. But how do the electoral vote totals look if the main stream polling consensus is adjusted to take the Trafalgar results into account?

The Morning After

I am writing this the morning after the Mueller hearings. And I am pinching myself to try and find out if what I recall of the hearings yesterday actually happened.

I mean – are the Democrats really as stupid as they appeared to be yesterday?

Did they really intend to showcase the Mueller report’s fundamental departure from the rule of U. S. law, wherein the President was not afforded the presumption of innocence, as required by the due process enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution? Did they not expect that Representative Ratcliffe, or one of the other Republican representatives, would use the opportunity presented by the hearings to ensure that everyone understands that no prosecutor, ever, has any authority to make statements about “exoneration?” Did they not understand that the great unwashed masses are at least alert enough to realize that if the President himself can be treated this way, then there is no hope for the rest of us?

The Alabama Abortion Bill and the Vulnerability of Roe v. Wade

The Alabama Human Life Protection Act signed into state law on May 15th seems to have engendered a noticeable increase in intensity beyond the usual aggrieved progressive response to the introduction of restrictive abortion laws. [1,2] This is somewhat curious, since this is only one of several bills introduced in states this year to restrict abortions. [3] I suspect it is because the sponsors of the Alabama abortion bill have stated that their intent is to directly challenge Roe v. Wade, and that they will focus on the personhood of the baby in the womb:

“It was about creating something that was meant to go all the way to the Supreme Court and it also needed to have the most value when talking about a pro-life bill if you are going to try and pass it,” Collins said. [4]

“The point is it acknowledges there is a baby, there is a person there,” Collins said. “Under Alabama law right now, that baby, that presence, is already acknowledged under current law.” [5]

Virginia is NOT a gun-friendly state

One of the most important ongoing fights against progressives is the battle to protect the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Although the 2008 Heller case was initiated over the issue of possessing firearms for the purpose of self-defense in the home, it was especially reassuring to see that Justice Scalia in the majority opinion went to great lengths explicating the foundational justifications for and meaning of the Second Amendment. [1] However, the Heller case did not address the scope of legitimate actions that can be taken in self-defense. This is an important topic – after all, what good is it to possess a firearm if the laws in your state do not strongly support its use in self-defense?