Take 6 black men, a Muslim, a Black woman, and Asian woman, and a white woman. Put them in an isolated research station on Antarctica. What could go wrong?
That’s right- violent crime is up 100% across the entire continent. The only white woman within thousands of miles has been raped and is calling for help that can’t arrive for another six months. There have been assaults, death threats, and there is even a report that someone’s bike has been stolen. (OK, maybe not the last one.)
Let me lay out a few thoughts with regard to the current conflict in the Red Sea.
The very first test of the new United States was just a decade after the ratification of the Constitution. France was at war with England, as it seems they have been more often than not. When the Republic of France went to war with Great Britain and the European coalition in 1792, the United States declared its neutrality, and the French didn’t like the fact that the new nation was neutral.
This was made worse from the French point of view when the US signed the Jay treaty with Britain, opening trade between the new nation and the British colonies in the Carribbean. As a matter of policy, France began permitting privateering against US shipping. This sparked the formation of a new US Navy to take on French privateers in a conflict called the Quasi War. In the beginning, merchant ships were converted to Naval service while the US built its first six frigates. The conflict ended in 1800. This is an important conflict because it was waged by President George Washington until he retired in 1799 and Congress never declared war.
It should be well known to my readers that non-Muslims living in areas controlled by Muslim rule are referred to as dhimmi. The term dhimmi means “one whose responsibility has been taken” and refers to those who must be ruled over by those of the Muslim faith. Muslims believe that dhimmi must convert to Islam, serve Muslims as laborers or in their military, or pay tribute referred to as jizya.
This was the premise behind the Barbary pirates. The Barbary states were a collection of Muslim nations on the north coast of Africa: Morocco was an independent kingdom, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli owed a loose allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. The naval forces of the Barbary states were capturing US ships and holding the crews for ransom, some for more than a decade. They were doing this because they were Muslim and were demanding the US pay jizya in exchange for their ships being protected from the Barbary states themselves.
As we have posted above, and in previous posts, the practice of state-supported piracy and ransoming of captives was not wholly unusual at the time. International law said that pirates could be executed on sight. Granting a letter of marque made a pirate a legitimate member of a nation’s policy and not a pirate. This is where the Constitutional clause allowing letters of Marque came from.
Since the US was busy fighting off the French privateers at the time, they decided that it was cheaper to pay the jizya to the Barbary states than it was to fight them as well as the French. That’s what they did until 1801, when the Pasha of Tripoli, Yusuf Qaramanli, citing late payments of tribute, demanded additional tribute and declared war on the United States. The US chose to stop paying the jizya and instead sent their new Navy. The Marines still sing about the resulting military action to this day. The US negotiated a halt to the raids in 1817, but they continued raiding shipping of other nations until the French finally invaded Algiers and leveled the place.
What we are seeing in the Red Sea is a continuation of the Muslim desire to force everyone to either convert or pay tribute. That is why piracy is a problem in the Red Sea and in the Gulf of Aden. The Muslims in Yemen and Iran have decided that people either pay tribute or serve them in their desires. Those morons wouldn’t be able to do anything if it weren’t for the Iranians supplying them weapons. Note that European nations’ shipping is being left alone. I wonder what that is…
The US has long taken the position that the open ocean is free for navigation. We can either try to fight another forever war of insurgency against Yemen, or we can cut their weapons off at the source- tell Iran to stop supplying missiles to terrorists or else. No need to engage in a long war- tell them to stop selling weapons to them. If the weapons continue to flow, then take out the Iranian navy. If they want to continue after that, we can bomb the missile factories. If we don’t want to do it, all we have to do is tell Israel that we will no longer hold them back from doing it themselves.
All of the pearl clutching about how Trump is evil for ignoring the judges orders opposing his executive actions is complete partisan bull hockey. Here is what AOC said two years ago when a Federal Judge in Texas suspended the approval of abortion pills:
When it comes to executive actions, I don’t believe that any low level judge has the power to overrule the President. Any order to stay or overrule a President’s executive actions can, in my opinion, only come from SCOTUS.
Why? SCOTUS is the only court that is explicitly created by the Constitution. Lower courts are established by Congress. A judge in a court created by Congress shouldn’t be able to overrule the chief executive.
The “Keep Americans Safe Act” is a proposed Federal law that would ban the sale, transfer, possession, import, or manufacture of magazines over 15 rounds, with the obligatory carve out for law enforcement.
“We in Las Vegas know all too well what happens when a mass shooter is armed with a weapon equipped with a high-capacity magazine,” Congresswoman Titus said, referring to the 2017 Harvest Festival shooting that claimed the lives of 60 people. “As a gun owner myself, I know these are not for sport or hunting, they are killing machines. The Keep Americans Safe Act would protect families, law enforcement, and community members from this deadly form of gun violence.”
It would require all magazines that are manufactured to have a serial number permanently engraved on it. It also mandates the mandatory buyback (which of course is a politically palatable way of saying confiscation) of all magazines holding more than 15 rounds.
I am not turning in shit.
Here is an interesting map of the world’s highest marginal tax rates.
I think that there is an important thing you need to realize has been overlooked about the US tax rate- it only is looking at IRS income tax. It isn’t taking the US Social Security tax rate into account. Adding that into the mix, and the highest US marginal rate is about 49 percent.
Furthermore, property, sales, or other indirect taxes are not included. It also omits state, provincial, and municipal taxes. In total, the US total tax burden averages out to about 31 percent of total income. Still, more than half of the people who live in the US are net receivers of US tax money. It’s a critical number. When more than half of the people who vote receive more money than they pay in taxes, there is no way that you can get the public support and votes to change anything.
Most of the people in the country care more about what people have left over after taxes than they are about the taxes that they themselves are paying. When I point out that a flat ten percent income tax with no deductions or adjustments permitted would get the nation $2.3 trillion a year in income tax revenue, people still complain. Why?
This would mean that a person who makes $10,000 a year would pay $1,000 in taxes, while a person making $10 million would pay $1 million in taxes, ten times as much. This isn’t as fair as a flat rate, but it’s more realistic and practical.
Still that isn’t good enough, because when I do point that out, the counter argument that they make is “Yeah, but that leaves the poor guy with only $9 thousand, while the rich guy still has 9 million.” To these people, taxes are a way of taking money from the rich so that everyone is equally poor. In other words, communism. It’s caused by pure envy and jealousy.
I maintain that if you took all of the wealth of the nation and redistributed it to each person, giving every one a million dollars, within 10 years the people who are now poor would all be broke, and the ones who are rich would mostly be rich again. Why?
The poor would spend it because they see money as something they use to buy things. Give people with this attitude a million bucks, they will have a house full of big screen TVs, gold chains, and fancy cars.
The rich would be rich again because they see money as a vehicle to make more money. While there are people who are rich due to graft and corruption, largely those people are government officials who earn their money by peddling influence. Most of the nation’s rich, the people in the top quintile, are there because of skill, hard work, and attitude. Give them a million bucks, and they will start a business selling those baubles to the people that are soon to be poor.
All taxes are supposed to be so that a society can have the things that it needs for us to exist- fire, police, courts, and common defense. Instead, it has become a way for one group of people to steal wealth from those who have earned it.
I don’t think that we should have ANY Federal level taxes on individuals. Instead, the Federal government should charge a per capita tax to each state. Let the states figure out how they want to come up with the money. Each state can charge it to their citizens, or perhaps they can add it as a tariff to exports. You want Alaskan oil? Salmon? Crab? Alaska is charging a tariff on that good in the amount of $$ to cover Alaska’s per capital tax obligations. Perhaps Florida could charge a tourist tax for beach or theme park access, or a tax on oranges. New York would be free to have an income tax. Each state decides. You get the idea.
If i were to hypothetically park a Tesla in my driveway, would that be considered hunting over a baited field? This website is publishing the names and addresses of some Tesla owners, along with this advice:
If you’re on the hunt for a Tesla to unleash your artistic flair with a spray can, just step outside—no map needed! At DOGEQUEST, we believe in empowering creative expressions of protest that you can execute from the comfort of your own home.
DOGEQUEST neither endorses nor condemns any actions.
Before you embark on any adventure, we highly recommend checking out the No Trace Project.
That link to the no trace project includes instructions for hiding your identity as you commit acts of violence. The quote from their site is prima facie evidence of criminal intent.
No trace, no case. A collection of tools to help anarchists and other rebels understand the capabilities of their enemies, undermine surveillance efforts, and ultimately act without getting caught.
So here is my reminder and warning for those who would try this shit:
Florida 776.08: “Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
Why is this important? Well, if the damage you cause is $1,000 or more to repair, it is felony criminal mischief. If you start a fire, arson is a forcible felony. In Florida, it is lawful for someone to use deadly force if they reasonably believe that force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of that felony.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
I know the range from my house to every driveway on my street. Think about that for a minute. You are engaged in terrorism, and I will not let that shit go down on my street. If you mean to have a war, let it start here and now.
The US Attorney’s office has just filed a brief stating that suppressors aren’t arms and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.
This is twisting the definitions, since 26 USC 5845 defines a firearm thusly:
The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device.
The Chinese, on the other hand, are a much more credible threat. PLAN (the Chinese Navy) is large, modern, and growing. Six modern, recent nuclear submarines. The diesel submarines that can’t do well in the open ocean work quite well in the shallow waters of the China sea, and PLAN has 45 of them.
They have 46 new destroyers, 44 frigates, and 3 carriers with more under construction.
Contrast that with the US Navy. We have :
Also keep in mind that we have to monitor 2 oceans. PLAN only has to cover one. Our Navy still has a decided advantage, but the Chinese are building a lot of ships, and the US isn’t.
The Chinese own an estimated 600 nuclear weapons and they are expected to have double that number by 2030. It is also estimated that only 24 of them are actually deployed on delivery devices. In both cases, I say estimated because no one really knows for sure. Since they are producing roughly 120 warheads a year, they are quickly growing in capability.
Contrast that with the US stockpile of 3700 operational warheads. That seems impressive until you realize that over 1900 of those warheads are in storage and are not available for use. While the tactical nuclear arsenal could once be deployed on NATO-designated aircraft within minutes, today the readiness level is measured in months. Since 2010, when Obama signed a new nuclear policy, the US has committed to not developing new warheads. He wanted to push us to a near unilateral nuclear disarmament.
For those reasons, China will be a near peer in deliverable nuclear warheads within the next 5 to 7 years.
Forcing NATO to begin providing for their own defense and providing their own nuclear umbrella is a wise move, and one that I would like to see Trump continue to pursue. China is our most dangerous and most credible adversary. Russia is in the middle of asking for North Korean assistance in order to invade Ukraine. They just aren’t in a position to threaten the entire world.
China has all of the people it needs. They are in the middle of securing access to minerals and other natural resources worldwide. There are tons of natural resources just to their north, and the only reason that they haven’t gone to go get it is that those resources belong a strong nuclear power. Once Russia collapses, it is theirs for the taking. Opposing Russia and trying to get Europe and the US to fight them is exactly what China wants.
The time to begin producing systems to defend ourselves is now, but we are too busy seeing our tax money syphoned off by greedy, corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle for that to happen.
The largest threat to the US is, in my opinion, the internal threat posed by the insurgent movement being backed by our own intelligence agencies/bureaucrats. China is our largest external threat.
Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station
“I will not stand by while Donald Trump abuses his power like a dictator,” said Judge Earl Flanders in his ruling. “Trump has no authority to pick up these astronauts, and I can say that because I’m a federal judge, and no one is allowed to argue with me, and everyone has to do what I say.”
I have been trying to build a pool. The city has been denying my building permit for one thing after the other. I even printed and emailed them a copy of the city’s zoning laws for my area, showing that my pool is in compliance. They responded by forwarding an email from the consultants who handle their building permitting process, again denying my permit by choosing to infer something into the code that isn’t there, and drawing a legal opinion based upon that inferred phrase.
Looking up the consultants, they are a firm that specializes in “protecting the environment by controlling community growth.” The woman who is giving her legal analysis? She has a bachelor’s degree in environmental science, not law.
So I have a decision to make on whether or not I should sue. Suing them will be very expensive, like tens of thousands of dollars, with no guarantee that I will win.
I hate all levels of government. It’s things like this that sometimes make me believe that a Somalia style anarchy wouldn’t be as bad as this is. I am trying to build a pool, not commit genocide. This town is so small that it doesn’t have a fire department, and more than half of its residents don’t even have sewage and rely on septic tanks, but they are worried about protecting the environment from my swimming pool.
I should run for town council and, once in office, go on a DOGE style firing rampage.