Death and Taxes

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
--The Beatles

The Inflation Reduction Act allocates billion$ for the adding more than 80,000 IRS agents. It appears that this will be a new breed of tax collector.

Recruiting materials say that agents must be able to 'carry a firearm and use deadly force, if necessary.'

It is said that there are only two things that are certain: death and taxes.

The IRS, it appears, is gearing up to provide for both.

Keep Him Out

But you won't get too far
'Cause you got to blame someone
For your own confusion
We're on guard this time
Against your final solution
--Red Rider

Interesting thesis about why leftists, including many on the conservative side, cannot let Trump back in the Oval Office. The primary answer is that it is not Trump, but the tens of millions of 'country class' that he represents. 

The elite cannot afford to have give those rubes, Clinton's 'deplorables,' a voice in the political process. And to keep that from happening, the ruling class will stop at nothing to keep that from happening.

The author suggests that leftists have a string of plans in the queue to keep Trump out of office.

Plan A. Use the Jan 6 show trials to keep Trump from running/winning. By most accounts, however, that isn't working.

Plan B. Indict Trump for 'seditious conspiracy' using the DOJ and other machinery of the deep state. Of course, it will be difficult to convince a large fraction of Americans that any such charges hold a modicum of legitimacy.

Plan C. Declare Trump ineligible to run under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. The legitimacy issue still holds.

Plan D. Simply beat Trump at the ballot box. The trouble is Democrats have no obvious candidate that could compete with Trump head-to-head this time around.

Plan E. Cheat (again) in the election. There is no question that Democrats will do what they can get away with (again) this time around. The issue is, given the heightened public awareness about election process shenanigans, how much they will truly be able to get away with in 2024.

Plan F. Take to the streets and riot. Do this until the 'proper' regime is secured in the White House.

It is easy to see why leftists are husting to grab guns ahead of this cycle.

Narrative Management

Nancy Oliver: What's the matter with the mistress? She don't look ill to me. Is she?

Elizabeth Tompkins: I don't know. Not as I can see. But the master keeps telling her she is.
--Gaslight

Leftists believe that words matter more than actions. This is why they respond like juveniles on the playground when someone says something they don't like. "He called me a name!"

Indeed, it seems that many leftists view hurtful words as equivalent to acts of physical aggression--acts that justify physical violence, perhaps by government agents, to quell the 'hate speech.'

This is also why leftists obsess with controlling narratives. Narratives are story lines. In reality, these story lines may be true or false. But regardless of whether narratives represent fact or fiction, leftists believe that they can manipulate behavior in their favor by manipulating language.

Controlling the narrative often begins by changing the definition of a word or phrase that is central to the storyline.

Leftists are currently focusing on the meaning of 'recession.' Rather than using the traditional definition of two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth (which likely has occurred in Q1 and Q2 of this year), leftists are now arguing that the definition is more nebulous and requires (very conveniently) a panel of experts to determine--perhaps far after the fact of the recession's actual commencement.

The narrative can then manipulated. We're still in an economic expansion, they say, because the experts haven't called a recession yet.

Should recent history be any guide, leftists will also try to recruit their media cabal to label alternative narratives as 'disinformation.'

If they can get the public to buy in, then perhaps leftists can postpone widespread perception of recession until after the November midterm elections. Leftists well know that people experiencing economic hardship are prone to vote out people and parties in positions of political power.

This time around, that would be Democrats.

Use your capacity for reason. Ignore the gaslights of narrative management.

Greenwood's Good Samaritan

"People rely on the police to keep them safe. That's the problem. The police only arrive after the crime has taken place. That's like trapping the fox as he's coming out of the hen house. If a man really wants to protect what's his, he has to do it for himself."
--Ben (Death Wish)

Last weekend, a 20 yr old shooter opened fire in a Greenwood, Indiana shopping mall food court, killing three and injuring others. 

Tragic for sure. But it could have been much worse.

Within 15 seconds of the shooter's first shot, an armed civilian drew his carry pistol and put down the shooter. Mall security cam footage verifies the timeline.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media is under-emphasizing this part of the story.

Regardless, as the local police chief recounts, "Many more people would have died if not for a responsible armed citizen that took action very quickly." 

The major added, "This young man, Greenwood's Good Samaritan, acted within seconds, stopping the shooter and saving countless lives. Our city, our community, and out state is grateful for his heroism in this situation."

It should be noted that Indiana became a constitutional carry state July 1.

No Reason?

There's a gun and ammunition
Just inside the doorway
Use it only in emergency
Better you should pray to God
The Father and the Spirit
To guide you and protect you from up here
--Mike and the Mechanics

Another example of left-wing gun grabber hypocrisy.

More recently, one could substitute into the first panel the thousands of 'assault weapons' being sent to Ukraine streetfighters over the past few months.

No reason?

Confiscate the Cars

Who's gonna hold you down
When you shake?
Who's gonna tell you things
Aren't so great?
--The Cars

Nice one.

As we've noted, reason is not a prominent feature of gun grabber 'logic.'

Hysteria Again

I get hysterical
Hysteria
Oh can you feel it?
Do you believe it?
--Def Leppard

Acute situations foster System 1 thinking rather than reasoned thinking. System 1 thinking presents opportunity for politicians to engage in emotional capture.

It should therefore not be surprising that gun grabbers are once again coming out of the woodwork following recent episodes of mass shootings. They betray any semblance of sincerity by their hysterical idiocy.

These pages have previously suggested that, if they really wanted to sponsor 'serious' conversations about the positions they advocate, anti-gunners would benefit from better understanding of the firearms they target, and of their utility in self-defense situations.

That gun grabbers consistently fail to do so suggests that they believe the calm, reasoned approach to be a losing strategy.

So they continue down the path of hysteria.

"You've Got to Go"

Ellis 'Zee' Pettigrew: LT, rules of engagement?
Lt A.K. Walters: We're already engaged.
--Tears of the Sun

Last week 19 children and two teachers were killed by an 18 yr old active shooter in a Texas elementary school. Evidence is emerging that local police were on the scene early, but they did not enter the building to neutralize the shooter. 

As shots continued to be fired from inside the school building, onlookers, including parents of the students, urged law enforcement to get in there. But they stayed put. In fact, some onlookers who attempted to breach the 'safe zone' in desperation to 'do something' were forcibly restrained by police.

It was not until a Border Patrol tactical unit showed up more than an hour after the initial arrival of local law enforcement that the school building was finally entered and the shooter taken down.

A former Border Patrol agent who trained the team in active shooter scenarios was disturbed by local law enforcement's lack of urgency. "You go to the sound of gunfire," he said.

"Somebody's going to get shot in these scenarios--I mean, that's the whole point of an active shooter. And when you are a law enforcement officer and your job in the situation is to prevent any more innocent people from being wounded or killed--then you've got to go. Hopefully everything turns out OK, but you've got to go."

Active shooter situations dictate that law enforcement has to find a way in and neutralize the threat.

"If you're met with a hail of gunfire, then you've got to work your way around and figure out another way. If that means you retreat and port a window and go in, OK. The doors are locked, we can't get in, we don't have the tools to get in, then we've got to break the windows and go in. Driving a squad car through the side of the building--when you've got children being massacred inside of a building who gives a **** about a $50,000 squad car? Drive it through the wall.

"Because every shot that's fired is somebody either dying or getting wounded, you've got to go."

He suggests that officers on the scene bear a heavy burden for their failure to act.

"As far as I'm concerned, if there was any shooting going on, and there was law enforcement there failed to act for whatever reason, anybody that was there needs to turn in their badge and their gun, and they need to go away and hope they can live with the deaths of these children."

Pray for all involved, including those officers. And resolve that if you ever face one of these situations, then don't hesitate. You've got to go.

Burying Liberty...Again

"Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."

--Benjamin Martin (The Patriot)

Judge Nap rails against the unconstitutional seizing of Russian property, the freezing of Russian bank accounts, and the barring of contractual trade with Russian partners--all done under the guise of sanctions imposed after the Ukraine invasion. These sanctions violate both the Fourth Amendment, which requires warrants specific to place and person before property can be detained, and the Fifth Amendment, which requires due process before property can be expropriated.

A common response to charges such as these is that the Constitution only protects US citizens and not foreigners. This is wrong. The wrongheadedness of this line of thought is revealed by considering the Constitution's conceptual basis.

The formation of the United States is grounded in natural law. Natural law posits that all men are created equal at birth, meaning that we all have equal rights to life, to the freedom to pursue our interests as long as we do not forcibly intrude on the pursuits of others, and to the property that our pursuits might generate.

These natural rights are granted to each of us by our creator and as a condition of our humanity. They are unalienable, meaning that we are free to exercise our natural rights unencumbered by government interference. This is the founding principle of liberty. 

Government's sole just purpose is to protect our natural rights. It can only interfere in an individual's pursuits when it is suspected that a person has forcibly compromised the natural rights of someone else. However, government must carefully follow just legal processes including those specified by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

If the natural law basis of the Constitution is to be upheld, then it makes no sense to limit its application citizens of the United States. Americans were not the only people born to the 'self-evident' truth that all men were created equal. All have been endowed with the same set of natural rights. When government tramples on the natural rights of any individual, it has done wrong.

As the Judge notes at the end of his column: "War is the health of the state and the graveyard of liberty." Actions of the US government taken under the auspices of the Ukraine conflict demonstrate once again America's lack of leadership in championing the very principles upon which our nation was founded.

War finds the United States burying liberty once again.

War Over Peace

Guy de Lusignan: Give me a war.
Reynald de Chatillon: That is what I do.
--Kingdom of Heaven

Evidence continues to suggest that the West condones war in Ukraine. This weekend an EU diplomat stated that, "This war will be one on the battlefield."

To which Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov responded that this hardly sounded like a diplomatic position.

He's right.

Add to that further news about NATO beefing arms up and down its eastern front and continued efforts to ship military resources to Ukraine--along with no leadership (especially US) to convene diplomatic talks and it is difficult not to conclude that the West supports war over peace in Ukraine.

Lead Through Neutrality

"His voice traveled with such a still purpose. It was more than a voice...a man more than a man. He said, 'Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.'"
--Esther (Ben-Hur)

Country A and B are engaging in armed conflict. Country C, if it truly desires peace, does not pick a side. It does not join A or B in battle. It does not supply arms to A or B. It doesn't levy economic sanctions on A or B. It does not berate A or B in the media.

If it does any of these, then C reveals itself as a partisan cohort of war.

The peaceful stance is neutrality. Engage in trade with A and B. Seek to mediate, to understand the concerns of both sides. Volunteer to host discussions between A and B that would bring an end to violence.

Lead through neutrality.

Acts of War

Guy de Lusignon: Give me a war.
Reynald de Chatillon: That is what I do.
--Kingdom of Heaven

In the context of multinational geopolitics, an act of war is aggression done by country A on one or more other countries B of such magnitude that B declares that A's violence exceeds a threshold that justifies reciprocal violence by B toward A. 

While B's reciprocal violence, if taken, is often framed as 'self-defense,' it very well may be offensive in nature. In fact, A and B may engage in ongoing conflict where each side exchanges offensive salvos and defensive parries during the campaign.

Clearly, claiming something to be an act of war is subjective. How much damage must be done, and how many casualties must result before belligerent behavior is deemed an act of war?

Moreover, does a shot even have to be fired? After all, there are surely ways to do violence on others without discharging a weapon directly at them.

For instance, trade sanctions seek to hurt people of a country economically. That economic strife may maim or kill people--both in the country that is the target of sanctions and in other nations as well. 

Arms may only be involved to the extent that they need to be brandished to enforce the sanctions. Quite ironically, those guns often must be flashed at the sanctioner's own citizens to remind them of the consequences of trading with the enemy.

Although they almost certainly regard themselves as 'peaceful,' countries that levy trade sanctions are acting aggressively toward others--and toward their own people.

Collective Security

War, children
It's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
--The Rolling Stones

Whenever a 'crisis' comes along, it is tempting to assume that this time is different--that we're at a unique point in history never before contemplated. With a little digging, however, one finds that this is rarely the case.

Murray Rothbard provides useful historical context (penned in 1982) for the present Ukraine situation, particularly as it relates to the notion of 'collective security' and interventionism. Collective security is the philosophy upon which the United Nations and NATO were founded. Each nation state is viewed as an 'individual.' When one state 'aggresses against' an individual state, then it is the duty of the collective to punish the 'aggressor.' No declaration of war is necessary because the collective response is a 'police action.' All nations in the collective, including their media organs, are expected to fall in line.

The left warmly embraced the collective security concept--so much so that they were ardent supporters of US entry into the Korean and Vietnam wars. 

Opposition to war was instead a characteristic of the 'old right.' From the 1930s to the 1950s, the old right was regarded as 'isolationist,' objecting American entry into WWII, the Marshall Plan, NATO, conscription of troops, and Korea. Among the politicians in this group were Robert Taft and Howard Buffett (Warren's dad). Garet Garrett and John T. Flynn were among the author/analysts.

The old right isolationists saw grave flaws in the collective security concept. One was that, in reality, there is no single world government or police force. Instead, there are hundreds of nation states, each with their own war-making capacity. In some cases, this capacity is quite formidable. Consequently, when gangs of states wade into a conflict, they invariably widen it. Every controversy invites the gang to decide who is the 'aggressor,' and then attach to the side considered virtuous.

It stands to reason, then, that collective security systems have the potential to turn local squabbles into global conflagrations.

Another problem with the collective security notion is that it can be difficult if not impossible to accurately identify the uniquely guilty parties in conflicts between states. Although the property rights of individuals make actions by an aggressor relatively easy to finger, the legitimate boundary lines of each state are more difficult to discern. This is because state borders are rarely demarcated by just and proper means. Instead, states generally exist through coercion over citizens and subjects; state boundaries are invariably determined by conquest and violence. 

Consequently, by condemning one state for crossing the borders of another, collective security systems implicitly recognize the validity of existing boundaries. Why should boundaries of a state be any more legitimate now than they were one hundred years ago? Why should borders be enshrined such that crossing them leads all members of the security collective to wage war, and to force their citizens to kill and die?

It is straightforward to apply the limitations of collective security to the Ukraine situation. Indeed, one can find both of the above problems raised by Vladimir Putin in his address explaining the rationale behind his country's action in Ukraine.

Once again, it seems that we have failed to learn from history.

Pact and Pressed

"I wanna know why you're pressin' me."
--Latrell Walker (Exit Wounds)

Map shows what NATO expansion has meant over the past 30 yrs. Not only is the space between Russia and 'the West' becoming smaller, but many of the expansion members were formerly Warsaw Pact countries. 

The Warsaw Pact was system of shared security created in 1955 as a reaction to West Germany joining NATO. It can be seen as another expression of the Cold War pitting the two superpowers. The US led NATO, and the Soviet Union led the Warsaw Pact.

Unlike the Warsaw Pact, which dissolved when the Cold War ended, NATO persisted and, in fact, began scooping up former Pact members. Today, Belarus and Ukraine serve as the primary land buffers between the NATO collective and Russia.

It is straightforward to see how this situation has left Russia feeling increasingly pressed. Now it is acting to relieve that pressure.

Again, imagine a similar situation occurring domestically, with country members of a CCP-led shared security collective surrounding the US.

How would the US respond?

Financial System Warfare

"Dude, we're on the grid!"
--Riley Poole (National Treasure)

Over the past month we've witnessed countries using the financial system to suppress behavior that they don't like. First it was the Canadian government freezing bank accounts and funding sources of citizen CV19 protestors and their allies. 

Then there has been the international response to the Ukraine situation. The US, EU, and other state entities have levied an array of financially-oriented sanctions on Russia to the point where it seems nearly impossible for people inside Russia to engage in external economic transactions. Even inside Russia, those sanctions have wrought chaos--sovereign debt downgrades, plunging stock markets, a cratering Ruble among them.

What should be clear is that modern financial systems, whose digital configurations are far easier to manipulate than in the past, are being used as geopolitical tools of warfare. Armed with these tools, governments can target either their own citizens (e.g., Canada) or remote citizenry (e.g., Russia).

This lesson is unlikely to be lost on at least two groups. One group involves countries with, shall we say, invasive aspirations. In anticipation of where escalating geopolitical tensions might head, Russia began decoupling its monetary and financial system from the international grid several years ago. For example, it substantially cut its US dollar reserves and increased its gold holdings. Consequently, the present barrage of financial system sanctions, while difficult to handle, has not completely incapacitated a more independent Russian financial system.

Given its aspirations to take control of neighboring Taiwan, China will undoubtedly prepare for a similar barrage before physically moving across a border (if/when). Any belligerent, for that matter, will need to decouple its financial system to the point where it will be able to survive the monetary salvos.

The second group involves citizens at large. The issue is captured in a question: Knowing that a government can, at its discretion, freeze or confiscate digital bank accounts as well as block digital financial transactions of any citizen, do you really want to have all of your financial resources on the grid?

The more people wake up to the specter of government-waged financial warfare, the more likely they will begin re-positioning for greater financial sovereignty. 

This re-positioning to combat geopolitical financial warfare seems likely to include gold.

position in gold

Taft's Foresight

"This minute the Russians are watching their boards, trying to figure out what we're up to. If we can't convince them it's an accident we're trying to correct by any means, we're going to have something on our hands that nobody bargained for, and only a lunatic wants."
--Brigadier General Warren A. Black (Fail Safe)

Echoing yesterday's missive, Ron Paul argues that the expansion of NATO to Russia's doorstep is central to the Ukraine conflict. He also notes that concerns about NATO's focus on collective military force aimed at Russia can be traced back to the treaty's origin.

Ohio Senator Robert Taft was labeled an isolationist because he opposed entering foreign wars and alliances. In 1949 he voted against the North Atlantic Treaty, and he gave an insightful speech as to why. He stressed the possibility, similar to these pages, that surrounding Russia with military arms could prove dangerous at some point:

"It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to be an attack on Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem unreasonable. They may well decide that if war is the certain result, that war might better occur now rather than after the arming of Europe is completed."

More than 70 years later, NATO is still expanding the 'the arming of Europe' around Russia. Taft suggested that Russia might preempt perceived threat by engaging in conflict before that arming is completed. Ukraine as a NATO member would certainly be another step toward completion.

Consequently, as Taft foresaw, Russia finally acted.

Russia Ukraine History

"Music should flow like a language. Changing a single note can turn joy to sorrow."
--Dusan Gavrich (The Peacemaker)

Media coverage of the Ukraine situation leaves an impression that the invasion happened out of the blue. That Russian president Vladimir Putin suddenly decided to attack an innocent border country in an aggressive land grab.

Any message conveyed by a broad range of Western media should be cautiously considered--particularly when it concerns acts of war against members of the West. Not only is there surely to be a tribal bias in the messaging, but any student of war understands that large scale campaigns are rarely initiated on a whim. Instead, there is probably a history, often a long one, that over time drives political leaders to be believe that their hand has been forced, and that the use of military force is justified.

In the case of Ukraine and Russia, there is a long shared history. Prior to the Russian Revolution, the land that is modern day Ukraine was split between Poland and the Russian Empire. Post revolution, the Ukranian People's Republic emerged as an independent state in 1917 that subsequently became a founding member of the Soviet Union in 1922, with its name changing to Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic. When the Soviet Union dissolved, the country regained its independence in 1991 as today's Ukraine.

A couple basic geographical features of Ukraine are worth noting. It shares a nearly 1500 mile border with Russia. It is also the second largest country by landmass in Europe (Russia is first).

Since it became an independent state, Ukraine's relationship with Russia has been a rocky one. Central to this conflict has been Russian concerns about the expansion of NATO. Russia has long viewed NATO as a threat to its sovereignty. Given the geopolitical features of Ukraine noted above, it is straightforward to grasp Russian fears about Ukraine being used as a NATO pawn.

In the early 2000s, political corruption in the Ukraine brought about the Orange Revolution. Partly backed by Western sources, including the US State Dept and Soro's Open Society Institute, the revolution resulted in the installation of pro-Western politicians in Ukraine's government. To counter, Russia began supporting Ukraine political movement that it liked. 

The following few years were marked by a series of protests, revolutions, and contested elections in Ukraine, undoubtedly spiced by outside influence from both Russia and Western entities. In 2014, instability and revolution prompted Russia to occupy and, ultimately annex, land in southern Ukraine that became known as the Republic of Crimea. Although the annexation was claimed to be the choice of an autonomous, pro-Russian state, its legitimacy has been contested per United Nations resolution.

Post Crimea, tensions have continued to escalate. Eastern Ukraine provinces (those close to Russia) have been susceptible to violent uprisings between nationalists and separatists. Repeated calls by Putin for formal agreements that would keep Ukraine out of the NATO scheme brought not action. Over the past couple of years, Russia began to amass troop strength and conduct military drills along the Ukraine border.

The suppression of this history in current media coverage makes it easy to be suspicious of the dominant narrative. We'll connect past to present in an upcoming post.

Chinese Eyes

"I can feel it."
--Jack Goddell (The China Syndrome)

As headlines like this continue to surface, it is difficult not to construe that a primary objective of CV19 policy is to intentionally weaken US military capacity. Otherwise, it simply makes no sense to force vaccines on a demographic that is exposed to far greater risk in the line of duty than to the virus.

Reinforces notion that it would be wise to keep eyes on China.

More Government, Less Peace

There will be no isolation
In our secret separation
--The Fixx

Most people view themselves as peaceful. They claim that they detest violence. 

However, many of those same people are proponents of a strong state. The core competence of the state is force. When people contract with the strong arm of government to get something that they want, they are not acting peacefully. They are principals of violence, collaborating with agents to act aggressively against others.

Truly peaceful people seek to influence others through persuasion. They don't coerce.

A valid gauge to the innate peacefulness of a society is the size of its government. The larger the government, the less peaceful the citizenry. 

Further, because government is viewed institutionally, the larger the government, the more violence has been legitimized. 

For Your Safety

Say, we can go where we want to
To a place they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind
--Men Without Hats

Freedom is ours by birth. Security is a good that must be purchased. Because its core competence is force, government naturally seeks to sell its strong arms to willing buyers who want to feel safe.

It's been going on for millenia. Live inside our fortress walls in exchange for your labor. Our knights will protect you for tribute. We will confiscate your weapons to keep you safe. Variations of the classic protection racket that exploits fear.

The most heinous regimes in world history have commonly been built with protection planks.

A new one is under construction before our very eyes.