Now This...

One of the aspects of censorship that I have yet to see reported on was the ability of the powers that be to shut down Russian internet sites at the start of the Ukrainian war. I get it, these are considered to be "Russian Propaganda" however, the People who were not allowed to view this information were Americans. We the People should be free to view Russian propaganda if we so choose. Is it OK to censor Russian websites? Absolutely not, because the First Amendment protects YOUR rights and one of them is the ability to read what you choose to read. When they shut down a Russian site, they are Censoring YOUR information. They are filtering what you get access to. The Government of course will claim they had nothing to do with shutting down these sites, it was hackers or some other non-state entity. But was it really? We all know, well those of us who pay attention know, that our government employs tens of thousands of cyber specialists who created an entire series of tools to

  (Listen here ) Transcription Remember the “4 Horseman of the Apocalypse”? Well, they’ve been re-placed. Why? I dunno. Maybe it was a PR move. “Famine”, “Plague”, “Pestilence”, “Death” were such downers! And anyway, since John’s Technicolor Revelation, we’ve gotten Mickey D’s, penicillin, Handi-Wipes and the Internet. Problem solved. Move along…there are no 7 Headed, 10 Horn Beasts to be seen here. Which is not to say we still aren’t in deep fertilizer. “Re-placed” is not synonymous with “eliminated”. But instead of all that messy “Horse and Plague” stuff, the death of the Republic still appears to be dead ahead. But rather than galloping in on horseback, interrupting our “Yellowstone” re-runs, the Four Bad Dudes are proceeding apace with the same prophesied inevitability but just a tad more insidious. Instead of horses snorting smoke and fire, they arrive “on little cat’s feet.” But unlike Sandburg’s “fog”, they’re not just checking things out and “moving on”. They have every in

The concept of government 'laws' is illogical.   Criminals or 'outlaws' whom the 'laws' are meant to constrain don't care about the 'laws', that's why they are considered to live outside the 'law', 'outlaws'. If they are a thief, a rapist or a murderer they will steal, rape and kill. Look how much crime there is every day all around the world despite 'laws' forbidding it.   People who aren't criminals don't care about those 'laws' because stealing, raping and killing are things they wouldn't do anyway, so such 'laws' are irrelevant to them.   The majority of 'laws', however, aren't meant for criminals, they are for social control. The majority are 'prior restraint laws'. 'Laws' that restrain people's behavior ostensibly to prevent them from harming others if left to their own devices. In other words, people are punished for behavior that hasn't harmed anyone b

No matter when you’re reading this, it won’t be long until the next “mass shooting”. Sad and tragic as that is, it’s become a fact of life (no pun intended) in America. As soon as the story breaks, all the Usual Suspect will rise to spout all the usual claims, clichés, and disinformation they used the last time – right after the obligatory “Our thoughts and prayers are with…” In an effort to end the endless babel from vented spleens, OMGs, frazzled feelings, butthurt, and obscene political posturing whisked in with valid pain, loss, and all the trappings of tragedy, here are some essential facts you’ll want to have ready for contentious times ahead. The odds of any of the following providing comfort to survivors, victims, and loved ones are minimal. The answer to the so-called ‘assault weapon’ issue will only be found in logic, reason, and objective analysis. Each of these elements neutralizes the demagoguery of the professionally outraged; instead, they attack the evil gun and fire ad

 A Substack subscriber wrote: Hey Brian Since government derives its power from the consent of the governed, how can the governed withdraw its consent and institute a new government knowing the present government will resist with violence? LS A great - and vexing - question! The obvious answer (required) is the process of withdrawing consent and instituting a new government can be difficult and complex, particularly if the present government is resistant to change and willing to use violence to maintain its power. One approach is to use nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience to pressure the government to change. This can involve peaceful protests, strikes, boycotts, and other forms of nonviolent action designed to disrupt the normal functioning of society and draw attention to the issues at hand. Think of John Galt’s role in Atlas Shrugged. Another approach is to work within the existing political system to effect change. This can involve running for office, supporting political

 Censorship is the surest way to guarantee you don’t know what you don’t know. And you won’t. The subtle censorship of the Biden administration has been simmering effectively on the MSM’s back burner since the 2020 “Biden Basement” Campaign. Using Covid and media myrmidons as cloak and shield, Biden was enabled and empowered to hide his questionable poll numbers just as he avoided the discomfort of embarrassing inquires. When the occasional pointed question did make it past the PR radar, employing the patented Ignore Button saved the day. Biden’s sounds of silence were discovered and perfected during the ‘campaign’; ‘less is more’ worked very well. After his questionable election and lightly attended inauguration, his handlers were shocked at his multiple gaffs, but just as thrilled ‘calling a lid’, Camp David and multiple Delaware weekend retreats were remarkably safe and effective keeping Biden incommunicado and the public mostly unaware. At least in the beginning. Falling up the s

Regardless of your patriotic sensibilities, the truth about government is an absurdity without rationale or reason. There are no qualifications required to be president, a member of Congress, or on the Supreme Court. You don't even have to be a lawyer to be on the SCOTUS! A political candidate can promise anyone, anything and there are no consequences when he/she doesn't keep their campaign promises. If elected, there is no such concept as 'going to work', there are no work hours, there is no job description and you can't be fired. If you're on a committee and don't want to attend committee meetings, no problem. Don't want to vote on a bill, no problem. Don't want to attend a congressional hearing, no problem. You can do whatever you want, nobody's keeping track. Each member of Congress gets an office and a $2 million/year office budget with which they can do anything they want. They get a $174,000/yr salary for doing whatever they want. More

  Finding a talented writer and exceptional thinker is one of the few bennies still available on Face Book. On those rare occasions, it is my intention to give their talent and intellect the widest exposure possible. BW A few decades ago I went to college where there was a man who dressed as a woman. This person was about as non-sexual as you can get. They didn't make a point out of it at all and neither did anyone else. As I'm now a self labeled Moderate, I'll say this. There are some men and woman who have body dis-morphia or whatever it's called this week. However, the vast majority of them are Simply straight Men who have a fetish for wearing women's clothing or they are Gay men who have found wearing women's clothing gets them more attention. Most of the Gay trans people, work in the sex industry.  Maybe one in ten trans people truly believe they are the opposite sex, the vast majority of them are just Men with a Fetish or they are Sex workers, either do

Politics are the cause of so many problems but why? Politicians create problems, so they can claim to be the only way to fix them. That's my theory, it's the Self Licking Ice Cream Cone.   As an individual voter, at best you might fend off those problems for a while by voting, if you get lucky, and if the stars and moon are in the right order with Mars. Maybe you can find someone who actually rolls back an abuse or two, but it's always one step forward and two steps back. People are people and a government full of people doesn't get better by adding more people and giving them more and more power and more and more money with less and less accountability. Which it seems we always do, over and over again throughout history. Read the Bible, it's one story after another of leaders gaining power only to abuse it until their nations crumble.   Why do we keep doing it? Probably because people are naive enough to think politics will solve their problems if they just vote ha