Lynch mobs

Andrew Branca talks about the intimidation of the jury in the Chauvin trial, and he made some points that struck a chord with me. First, let me start with the relevant quote from the esteemed Mr. Branca:

If it cannot be expected that Chauvin can get any fairer a trial elsewhere in Minnesota than he can in the rage-mob surrounded Hennepin County Courthouse, the solution consistent with the “justice” any of us would want for ourselves or anyone we care about is not to compel him to endure an unfair trial where he is.

That is the point- if a person who is accused of a crime cannot receive a fair and impartial trial under the law, then the law has become nothing more than a codified lynch mob, and we can forget about calling our legal system a “justice system” because there will be no justice of any kind to be had.

The whole point of a trial is that the evidence is heard- both for and against- and then a jury decides whether or not the person is guilty of a crime. If we are to decide that a person is to be punished before the trial is even held, thereby making the trial a mere formality, then why bother with the trial at all?

Is that really what people, especially black people, in this country want? Are we to return to the days of lynch mobs? I fear for the times, the trials, and the tribulations to come. We are truly seeing the end of this republic, of very civilization itself, at least on the North American continent.

What comes next will be horrific.

The Payoff

A Republican who was willing to sellout and voted to impeach Trump is probably going to be anointed as the next governor of New York, now that Cuomo has fallen from favor.

Cuomo was becoming too much of a force in the Democrat party, and the Harris administration couldn’t have a challenger for power, so Cuomo was politically eliminated. The Democrats need token Republicans who can be used for claims of “bipartisanship” but can also be controlled like the cucks that they are. Who better than a guy who values his chances in the next election so much that he will sellout if he thinks it will benefit his election chances?

Now that the Democrats have proven that they can outright steal an election and then publish a news story in Time Magazine admitting it and no one will stop them, no one gets into office over their objections. The ballots that were used to game the election in 2020 were a rush job, with Biden getting votes on ballots that had no down voting. Expect that to change in future elections. The next time, they will begin printing ballots weeks in advance. They will select the tame candidates from the President all the way down to dogcatcher.

John Katko has proven that he is tame and will vote as he is told to by his left wing masters.

Destroying the police

The left has to destroy local and state police so that they can replace them with Federal police. They need centralized control so that they can consolidate power into one location.

So they advocate for “fixing toxic police” and “unbundling” police departments. The more they do that, the more crime and lawlessness. Once that happens, people will clamor for the Federal government to step in and “fix” the problem.

SCOTUS update

Just one day after my post on packing the Supreme Court, the Democrats have decided not to wait for Biden’s commission to pack the court. They are going to announce a bill on Thursday to expand the court from 9 members to 13. Of course this means that Biden would get to nominate 4 members to the court, and would give them an 8 to 5 majority an every issue to come before the court.

I know some Republicans would be saying, “The next time the Republicans get a majority, they could simply increase the SCOTUS from 13 to 17.”

After watching the last election, does anyone think there will EVER be another Republican majority?

Federalizing the police

Try to find any information about the number of National Guard troops currently deployed in Washington, DC to guard the capitol. The information was there yesterday. It doesn’t seem to be available today. Almost like we are not permitted to know. The last I saw, it was 2,500 troops authorized until at least May 23. The Capitol is fenced off like this:

Nancy Pelosi has selected the commanding General of the Washington, DC National Guard as the Sergeant at Arms, or head of security for the Capitol. The Military is now in charge of Capitol Security. (Of course, Pelosi is claiming that she would have fought off the attackers in hand to hand combat. Big talk from a woman who fled with her armed secret service detail.) The Capitol will be a walled fortress, staffed by armed troops, just like this famous building:

I also would like to know how the Vice-President was giving orders to the Army, seeing as how he isn’t in their chain of command. Doesn’t seem to me that his orders would be lawful ones.

The National Guard troops in the Capitol have formed a QRF, which they recently deployed. Note in the picture below that the QRF has no firearms, and there are no armor panels in their plate carriers. At least three of the eight members of this squad have mags in the ammo pouches. Does this mean that they are only armed with riot gear for this specific mission, but have the option of firearms?

Meanwhile, the US military is busy purging itself of anyone who is remotely Republican or has Conservative leanings. This, coupled with a push to call all police forces tools of racist oppression, makes me believe that we are seeing the pieces being put in place for a national police force. This is typical of communist takeovers- the personnel for the national police force comes from pro-Communist forces. That’s right- BLM and Antifa will likely be the core of this new police force, if history is any guide. In fact, documents leaked in 2016 show that George Soros was planning exactly that, and has been funding BLM to achieve this goal. Barak Obama himself advocated for the Federalization of the nation’s police in 2011.

The Hill has been calling for that since last July– the Federalization of all local police. The Republic would have finally become the Empire.

Armed Insurrection

Politico published a story that talked about the Oath Keepers having “stashed” weapons in a Virginia hotel during the January 6 protest, as if they were up to something nefarious. The entire trope was put in place by the government and their lackeys in the press.

The reality is exactly the opposite. It is virtually illegal for anyone to have firearms in Washington, DC. So the protesters followed the law, leaving their firearms in the nearest location where it was legal for them to be. They rented a hotel in nearby Virginia, stashed the weapons there with a person tasked to ensure they didn’t fall into the wrong hands, and proceeded into Washington for the protest.

Instead of proving some nefarious plot, it shows me that the people involved were doing what they could to comply with the law. If they were actually trying to overthrow the government, it was the worst plot ever.


As an atheist, I still believe that the right to worship whatever god you wish is a basic freedom that this government was established to protect. I also do not believe that the government should have the power to lock us in our homes, COVID or not.

To further establish a set of rules allowing people to leave for massages, dining out, or pedicures while prohibiting church services is an even larger violation. For that reason, I think that SCOTUS got it right in the Tandon decision. I also think that Roberts has been compromised. They have some kind of leverage against him.

Still, the left has GOT to demonize the Supreme Court so that they can get the kind of changes in the system that they are looking for. You see, they have discovered how to rig elections, but all of that is in jeopardy as long as there is a branch of government that can’t be replaced with rigged elections. That means that, if the Communists Democrats want to seize power, the judicial branch MUST be brought to heel.

SCOTUS will be eliminated in practice, if not in name. Expect to see the likes of Justice Obama, Justice Clinton, and justices who are even more extreme. For that reason, stories like this need to be written by the left.

Fire in a theater

From a post made by Big Country, we get this:

The “can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” trope is worn out bullshit. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known — yet misquoted and misused — phrase in Supreme Court history: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will drag this phrase out as proof of limits on the First Amendment before using that limit as an excuse to violate other rights. Holmes’ quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is misunderstood. Those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the case it comes from, U.S. v. Schenck, was overturned over 40 years ago.

U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires, theaters, or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. The pamphlet did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience. All it did was express opposition to the draft.

The Court’s description of the pamphlet proves it to be milder than any of the dozens of protests currently going on around this country every day:

It said, “Do not submit to intimidation,” but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed “Assert Your Rights.”

The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice’s ancillary opinion that doesn’t directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. In fact, the statement was The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year–Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.–also sent anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. Together, the three cases did more damage to First Amendment than any other set of cases in the 20th century.

It wasn’t until Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 that Schenck and any authority it carried was overturned. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. (Note that this is the same reason why Trump can’t be prosecuted for what he said in his speech on January 6)

Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of government overreach have not stopped trotting it out as the final word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. That quote is worse than useless in defining the boundaries of the limits on speech or on government tyranny. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any constitutional right. This is intellectually lazy and is outright dishonest.

Like the original case, this statement is being used by a tyrannical government that is using it to violate the rights of people who are on the wrong side of the political debate.