Hey

A number of the most serious questions of all are coming up all at once. I'm trying to get you to think seriously about them, and I'm greatly encouraged to see that Thomas &c. are trying to do so. This is good. Be patient with each other as we do it. These decisions are critical, and we only get one shot at them. Let's talk about them, as we have been, in mutual respect and due honor. It's a hard moment. You're all doing well. Even if we get it right it may all go wrong. Strength and honor.

What Are the Obstructionists Fighting For?

What are the goals of the obstructionists* in Minneapolis? 

1. Prevent the removal of illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes in the US as well as all other illegal aliens
2. Hold onto illegitimate political power in the House and Electoral College
3. Protect the ability to fund Democrat causes through defrauding federal programs
4. Protect the ability to gain political power through election fraud
5. Provide a testing and training ground for further nation-wide organizing and obstruction
6. As much as possible, reverse the elections of 2024 and obstruct the will of the people of the United States until Democrats can retake Congress and the Presidency
7. Ultimately, in the long term, to gain power over the US through whatever means necessary (mainly fraud), strip us of our rights, and rule us similarly to the way the UK is currently ruled. This means disarming the people, eliminating genuine free speech via "hate speech" laws that punish their critics, guaranteeing access to abortions and to gender transition treatments to children, and eliminating freedom of conscience and religion by mandating religious organizations and individuals subordinate their consciences to progressive moral codes (e.g., being arrested for praying silently outside an abortion clinic, the Little Sisters of the Poor being forced to provide abortion coverage, no right for doctors to refuse to perform an abortion, no parental right to prevent gender transition by schools, etc.).

Those are the things the obstructionists in Minneapolis are fighting for. It may also be clarifying to note a few things for which they are not fighting.

What are the obstructionists NOT fighting for?

1. Natural rights: They don't believe in natural rights and frequently infringe on the rights of their fellow citizens, forcing drivers to pull over and prove they don't work with ICE, demanding patriotic clothing be removed in order to avoid harm from a mob, ramming ICE and BP vehicles, invading a church during services, destroying the property of hotels that host ICE and BP agents, etc.
2. American ideals: They believe the Founding Fathers were evil men who set up an evil system to maintain their own power and privilege and oppress the poor, non-whites, women, etc. They want to replace the Constitution, or at least re-interpret away every bit of it they don't like.
3. Popular sovereignty: They don't care about the will of the people; they believe themselves engaged in  the highest moral crusade and anyone who opposes them, even if that is a large majority of the people, not only can but should be trod under on the road to achieving their moral vision. They feel fully justified rigging elections, assassinating opponents, and doing whatever else is necessary to win the power to achieve their goals.

I feel sorry for the obstructionists. They have bought into a worldview based on a pack of lies. As they constantly remind us, they firmly believe they are the good guys and the rest of us are fascists. They are sincere, but they are wrong, and empathy for them is suicidal. They are the foot soldiers of tyranny, much closer to being fascists than the rest of us, and they must be resisted.

Any backing away from immigration operations in Minneapolis will be taken as a victory and will give a tremendous boost to similar obstruction operations across the blue cities in blue states. Their victory in Minneapolis would be another step toward our eventual enslavement. With the UK's sad slide into tyranny, the US has been able to stand up and at least give the British people venues to hear the truth and to express it. If the US falls to a UK-like tyranny, there will be no one to save us.

###

* Why "obstructionist"? I'm using "obstructionist" to differentiate those actively obstructing federal law enforcement from peaceful protestors who are lawfully exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and speech. Grim and another source I respect have objected to calling them insurgents, so although I do think this is the early stages of an insurgency, I will refrain from labelling them that until I've considered this more thoroughly. Maybe insurrectionist would be better? I need to think about it.

Some Love for Ice-Watch

 I'm sure this watch company is getting a lot of exposure right now.

Who Are "We the People"?

In Grim's discussion of ICE Watch earlier this week he brought up the question of popular sovereignty:

What the government at all levels ought to take time to consider is how deeply the sovereign citizenry is rejecting this in at least some localities. I don't know or claim to know just what that means; perhaps we should, as we have often discussed, divide the nation in some way to allow the divergent political views space. Nevertheless, citizens are allowed to diverge in their opinions. Nobody has the right to use main force to compel Americans to abide by their preferred ideas about how we should be governed.

My question here is, which citizenry is relevant to the situation at hand? In our federal system, some powers are given to the federal government, in which case the relevant citizenry is all American citizens. These actions affect us all, so we should all have a say. Other powers are reserved to the states, in which case the relevant citizenry is the citizens of the respective states, and the citizens of other states should keep their noses out of it. Immigration belongs to the federal powers and we all have a stake in it, so the relevant sovereignty rests with the people of the nation.

Why? There are two main reasons. First, that is the system we have agreed to as a nation. If this agreement isn't acceptable to some, then they should work to change it. That is enough, but, second, as it stands, illegal aliens are counted in the census and count for apportionment for the House and Electoral College. This means that if some states cooperate with ICE and the illegal aliens there are deported while other states refuse to cooperate and keep their illegals, those latter states gain real advantages in the federal government. This would punish law-abiding states and reward law-breaking states. That is why immigration is a federal issue and the proper level of sovereignty is the American people as a whole, not the people of an individual state, much less an individual city. 

In 2024 the citizens of the United States expressed their will on federal matters by electing Trump and giving a majority in the House and Senate to Republicans. Trump ran heavily on enforcing federal immigration laws. This is the will of the relevant citizens. Sovereignty, in the end, means the exercise of power, or, as Obama said, elections have consequences. Being part of the sovereign citizenry in the Republic means accepting that, not obstructing it.

Protest is a right. I have exercised that right lawfully as have millions of others. However, while it takes cover among legitimate protesters, the mass, organized obstruction of immigration enforcement happening in Minneapolis is not a lawful protest and it is not an expression of the will of the people. It is obstruction of the will of the people and a rejection of the sovereignty of the people as properly expressed in the 2024 elections. These obstructors are petty tyrants who will be more than happy to tyrannize us all if they get the chance.

On 6-7: Solving the Important Philosophical Questions

 

Sasquatch

In Virginia, armed protesters are demonstrating against the new radical Democratic Party authority's attempts to constrain their rights. This is important, and something we must not lose sight of in the larger context. Armed protests are an American right, as arms are. Our heritage is Lexington & Concord, which were exactly about an attempt by a government to disarm the people.

UPDATE: Virginia has advanced what the media is happy to call an "assault weapons" ban; but the definition of "assault weapon" embraces most firearms in common use.

ICEWatch and Insurgency

A warrant officer from the US Special Forces weighs in on how similar he thinks the ICEWatch patrols are to an insurgency.

With due respect to the gentleman, having a Signal chat is not evidence of a military organization. I have several myself, without in any way being involved in an insurgency. It's just good sense these days to use end-to-end encryption to keep from being spied on by corporations, even more than governments. 

What ICE and other agencies are doing is deeply questionable and of reasonable concern. Keeping an eye on them and reporting any abuses is sensible and good citizenship. We are meant to be a self-governing society. Citizens should keep watch on every activity of government, and restrain it as they feel is appropriate. It is, after all, the citizens who are the ultimate sovereigns of the United States. 

That doesn't mean that some groups don't get out of hand and over-react, of course. 

Still and all, if this were an insurgency instead of a citizen watch there would be a lot of dead cops. Americans have 400,000,000 guns in private hands and trillions of rounds of ammunition. There are a lot of angry protesters, and some of them armed: but there aren't any dead cops. There are two dead protesters, so far. 

What the government at all levels ought to take time to consider is how deeply the sovereign citizenry is rejecting this in at least some localities. I don't know or claim to know just what that means; perhaps we should, as we have often discussed, divide the nation in some way to allow the divergent political views space. Nevertheless, citizens are allowed to diverge in their opinions. Nobody has the right to use main force to compel Americans to abide by their preferred ideas about how we should be governed. 

A self-governing people will diverge. Sometimes compromises can be reached; sometimes not. Liberty implies diversity of opinion. We probably all agree about the color of the blue sky, but experience demonstrates that we have very different opinions about many things. If there is to be a free society, there has to be room for that. 

First Principles on Arms

It's astonishing to see even well-regarded scholars who have long backed Second Amendment rights, like John Lott here, suddenly reverse themselves. It's very solidly within the American tradition for American citizens to bear arms; to watch public servants who are engaged in exercises and report, as citizen journalists, on whether they are behaving well or badly, on whether they are obeying or breaking the laws. If you are a public servant, whether a volunteer firefighter or a police officer, you should expect people to watch you do what you do and to talk about it freely. If you misuse your power, you should expect to be held accountable. That is the American way.

Some of those people may be armed: again, this is America. If you stop by the local gas station here, you'll see at least two men with pistols on their belts on an ordinary day. They aren't criminals, they're usually employees. Has anyone ever needed to use a gun on duty? No, not once. Why? Partly because everyone knows there will be a couple of armed employees making sure you don't rob the place. We have illegal immigrants and their associated cartels here, but we don't have the chaos of Juarez. It's safe enough that they don't need the guns precisely because they have the guns. 

Lott knows all that. We all do. It's critical not to lose sight of your first principles in the moment. 

Ice Updates

I'm seeing reports of 700,000 people being out of power, but fortunately for me I am not one of them. Nevertheless last night I stayed up late preparing for the possibility of the intense cold that's coming getting here without us having any power (as still may occur: more freezing rain is on the way this afternoon). I created a little 'yurt' structure out of tarps tacked up to contain the warmth from the wood-burning furnace, lined the floor with blankets, and dug out extra warm clothing for everyone. Hopefully we will be fine. 

As the 'other' ICE story continues to develop, the Washington Post today is running a video analysis that shows that the victim had in fact been disarmed by police before they shot him ten times. 

I want to take a moment here to praise the officer in the grey jacket who handled the disarmament: he was the only one in the videos who gave the sense of acting with professional collectedness and good judgment. He kept focus on the only thing that mattered and took immediate steps to resolve that problem and reduce the threat of lethal force being necessary. If everyone had behaved as well as he did, this would not have happened. 

The New York Times has a similar analysis: 

Video of the encounter shows Mr. Pretti, a U.S. citizen who had a permit to carry a firearm, stepping between a woman and an agent who was pepper spraying her. Mr. Pretti is then hit with pepper spray before a group of agents pin him down, restraining and disarming him. Agents then fired shots into his back and motionless body.

Trump officials immediately labeled Mr. Pretti a domestic terrorist, claiming without offering evidence that he had been out to “massacre” federal agents. They have underscored that he had been armed with a handgun, but video of the encounter verified by The New York Times shows that Mr. Pretti never drew his weapon.

I wonder how much of this is going to turn out to be a function of inadequate training. In a chaotic situation, you do tend to devolve to your level of training. The Trump administration, in its rush to field a much larger ICE force, has cut the training of ICE agents from 21 weeks (five of which was Spanish language, all of which has been cut) to 6 or 8 weeks (sources differ). 

For contrast, Marine Corps bootcamp is 13 weeks, and that's just basic training: only after that do you really begin training for your job. 0311 Riflemen then go on to another 14 weeks at the School of Infantry, while those with specialized roles in the infantry do that and then also another month -- just to be basically trained as what is commonly called a "grunt" who follows the direction of experienced NCOs in action. 

Watching the video, I am struck by how badly trained the agents seem to be. Their use of tools like pepper spray is ineffective; their beatings are also not properly targeted to effectively stop their target, so that even at 8 to 1 they were never quite able to subdue him. Aside from the one agent in grey, whose mind seemed to be working, they gave the impression of being scared and unable to perform effectively. I suspect a lot of the bad decisions made here were the result of them simply not having the training or experience necessary to perform well under stress.

I have expressed concerns about having a masked force that can't be effectively held to account; here we see that from the President on down there is a movement to refuse to hold them to account. But the accounting shouldn't stop with the agents. The conditions that allowed this kind of thing to happen began with some bad decisions from on high to cut training requirements, which haven't been rethought in spite of multiple tragedies or the clear evidence of intense political opposition by many American citizens. 

Who has the standing to bring such accountability? In Minnesota the attorney general is Keith Ellison, whose corruption and partisanship are watchwords. The governor likewise, in addition to which he is the same Tim Walz who lied about his military service for years. The Federal administration is lining up to avoid it (not for the first time: remember when the government just bulldozed the site after the Waco massacre?). There is no one at the state or the Federal level I would trust to treat this matter fairly, which is of possibly even greater concern than the continued existence of a barely-trained, masked, armed force being sent out into charged conflicts on a daily basis. 

In such a situation, like the agent in grey did, the thing to do is to calm down and act rationally to reduce the threat. Many people at all levels have an opportunity to do this, both in and out of government. It would be good to think about what each of us can do in that regard. 

Safety first

I used to resent all the anti-lawyer articles and jokes, but I've been largely won over.

Modern corporate training is built to produce a checkbox, not a mechanic. Modern consumer documentation is built to win a deposition, not to teach you anything. Modern “how-to” media is built to monetize attention, not to transfer skill. Those are three different poisons, but the lawyers are the one that made the first two mandatory.

And you can see the societal consequences everywhere. Repair literacy collapses. Trades become credential-gated while simultaneously deskilled. People lose the ability to reason from symptoms to causes. Everything becomes a black box serviced by a priesthood. Machines become disposable because maintenance is treated as unauthorized tampering. The consumer gets trained into passivity. The worker gets trained into compliance.

Ice and ICE

We are on the verge of what looks locally to be a major ice storm; we have been told to expect to lose power, possibly for several days (5-10 days being the order of magnitude of the worst predictions; hopefully it'll be better than that). I have a generator, but only a gasoline powered one, so if that happens we'll only have short bursts of power and internet. Maybe it won't, though; or maybe if it does the power company will get to us more quickly than they worry that they will. It's good to be prepared; we're well-stocked with food and firewood. 

By the time this particular emergency has passed, I hope we have clearer information about the ICE shooting today. It looks and sounds outrageous, but early reports are often wrong: I do share the sentiments in the cautionary note put out by The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus: 

[The Caucus] describes itself as an 'unapologetic defender of the Second Amendment,' released a statement saying it was 'deeply concerned' by the shooting and calling for an investigation by state and federal officials. It noted that many facts remained unknown.

"Every peaceable Minnesotan has the right to keep and bear arms — including while attending protests, acting as observers, or exercising their First Amendment rights,” the group’s statement said. “These rights do not disappear when someone is lawfully armed, and they must be respected and protected at all times.”

I'm inclined to say that ICE should be abolished like all Federal police agencies: the general police power is one the Founders intended to belong to the states, though they granted the Secret Service authority to combat counterfeiting and similar specialized offenses fairly early. I had hoped to start the abolishing with the ATF, but if you're going around shooting lawfully-armed American citizens -- a nurse with a carry permit, at that, meaning that his background would have been fully investigated and that he had no criminal record -- you could quickly and justly rise to the top of the list.

But we'll see what facts develop over a few days. For now, I have more immediate problems locally. Good luck to all of you in the storm's path. Keep warm. 

Patriots of the Caribbean

Utah Senator Mike Lee and Tennessee Representative Tim Burchett introduced legislation in December to make privateering great again with the Patriots of the Caribbean bill. (It's amusing to me that they both represent landlocked states.)

Here's maritime historian and privateer Sal Mercogliano's analysis of it:

Maria from Germany

Maria from Germany on X.

German, but very similar video to the Amelia videos. I wonder if it will catch on there.

I didn't know about the German outlaw Schinderhannes (Johannes Bückler).

Vengeance in Iran

A story out of Venezuela confirms that the US was assured of internal help to oust Maduro. 

The question of the day is: who's playing that role in Iran? If you haven't noticed, we now have substantially more firepower in theater than we did before the Gulf War or the Iraq War. Iran also breaks the last link to the West and Africa for China's Belt and Road project -- the Russia-based one was cut by the Ukraine war -- just as Venezuela cut  China's main cord to the Americas. I don't get the sense that most commentators understand this, but as crazy as this team is, they're rolling it all up. 

The main reason we should do it is not global-strategic, though there are global-strategic reasons that might suffice independently. It's definitely in the US national interest. Also, it's personal. The President gave his word that he would protect the protesters, and Iran murdered them by the tens of thousands. There must be an accounting for that. The world we live in only respects strength and honor. If we don't keep our word we show neither. 

Radicals in Virginia

Virginia is a pretty state; I lived there for two years in the early 2000s, and travel through there often. The Shenandoah region is full of busy little cities and long stretches of open road. If you have more time, the Blue Ridge Parkway stretches out of North Carolina into Virginia, formally terminating at the gates of the Shenandoah National Park but actually continuing through the park as the aptly-named Skyline Drive. 

It is a shame to see what's happening there now that they have given the Democratic party full control over the state's mechanisms. I think it's striking that one of their 'day one' bills was to forbid election audits and hand-recounts of machine-counted ballots. 

The blue cities keep pushing not just to consolidate their wealth and power, but to destroy the culture of the more traditional parts of the states they dominate. Every time they gain power, the cities press for abortion until the moment of birth (to include partial birth), DEI programs to re-educate the population (witness the day-one attacks on VMI), and of course the most expansive gun control they can squeeze through (in defiance of the Supreme Court as well as the state's traditional laws).

It's always sad to watch. 

Physical Rhetoric

It's purely a demonstration for effect, but the results are clear enough. This kind of physical 'rhetoric' should put an end to some of the crazier verbal rhetoric, but it probably won't. 

Threats & Lies

Two local newspapers, the Sylva Herald and Ruralite as well as the Smoky Mountain News, have jointly published an article in response to threats they have received. The threats cite other threats, in an ongoing controversy about whether -- I am not making this up -- the local public library should remain in its inter-county system or become independently managed by the county.

This is, in fact, the hottest political controversy in the county and has been for some time. 

The anonymous email claims “these individuals encourage agitation and unprofessionally mock duly appointed FRL board members and elected county commissioners. Such unethical behavior seriously undermines the Sylva Herald’s credibility and opens this newspaper up to legal ramifications and public embarrassment.”

I do not share the opinion that mocking the duly elected county commissioners in any way damages one's credibility. 

“YOU MUST CEASE publication of all falsehoods, slander, and spin,” the email continues without offering an example. “The Sylva Herald must CEASE ALL COLLUSION WITH EXTREMISTS. Period. Furthermore, Dave Russell and Beth Lawrence should resign immediately. Dave Russell doesn’t even live in Jackson County and regularly disregards objective truth while concealing facts. He has also been caught red handed by his own words making threats.”

The newspapers went ahead and published a list of the alleged extremists; I am sorry to report that I didn't make the cut. One who did is Antoinette MacWatt, the widow of a local Marine Corps veteran and a supporter of staying in the existing public library system -- obviously an extremist viewpoint, having a strong opinion about a public library. 

“This is your only warning. We will not respond to you,” it reads. “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

All I can figure is that the Republican side -- obviously aligned with the ones sending these anonymous emails -- has decided that the controversy is working for them in the local elections, or else has figured out some way to grift off control of the very limited budget associated with a local public library. If they've managed the latter they must be quite clever, a cleverness quite masked by their chosen mode of communications. 

Chess is Haram?

Pretty much everything about Islam, that false religion built around a false prophet, is at least a little bit crazy. Mormonism is just that too, though, and nobody really gets upset about Mormons (more coffee for the rest of us). I knew that very good things like dogs and bacon and beer were haram ('forbidden'), but today is the first time that I've heard that chess is. 

Apparently it mostly is, though there are some schools that consider it permissible as long as it doesn't cause you to gamble or miss prayers or anything like that. I suppose one could gamble on a chess game, although I have never heard of anyone doing so. 

Don't get me wrong; I don't hate Muslims or Islam or anything like that. I've met some very good Muslims, some of whom even kept to these ideas about haram and halal at least for themselves (and for the most part). I don't have any problem with people living however they choose, as long as they don't try to coerce others into submission. 

Chess, though? That seems like maybe the 'wise scholars' just weren't all that smart and got their feelings hurt. Chess is a great game, one that reliably rewards careful and deep thought.

Breaking Up NATO?

If Trump insists on acquiring Greenland regardless of Denmark, Europe, or the Greenlanders' desires, one possible outcome could be the end of NATO. Is that intentional on Trump's part? Is that part of what this is about?

Would getting the US out of NATO be a good thing for us? NATO has been such a fixture that I've never given it much thought. It could save us a lot of money, at least in the short term with base closures, withdrawing troops deployed to Europe, etc. Also, given most of Western Europe's insistence on being colonized by Islamist settlers, having lax immigration requirements for travelers and immigrants from Europe may well be a security risk. On the other hand, I've generally assumed that allies are helpful at least in intel sharing and that they maintain a certain stability that is good for us. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe Trump doesn't care about that anymore.

I can see how NATO may have harmed Europe, allowing them to ignore their own defense and their own people and instead to go crazy with their globalist dreams, but I don't know that that's the case. It would seem to fit a common conservative critique of welfare undermining independence and work ethic, though.

What do y'all think? Is Trump trying to get us out of NATO? Would that be a good thing? Or am I just way off base with this?

The Schismatic Archbishop

Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, who has the Catholic Church's authority for the US military, has endorsed the disobeying of orders by soldiers whose conscience is offended. 

We've talked about this periodically through the history of this blog, most recently when some Congresscritters decided to endorse the position. Sometimes it is morally proper to disobey orders, especially if those orders are shockingly immoral, this being the legal standard that came out of the My Lai massacre. Other times inferior officers give orders that are unconstitutional, which should be disobeyed because they are inherently mutinous. 

Too, one of the ways in which Medieval political philosophy was superior to Modern political philosophy lies in the division of the temporal authority from the spiritual. You couldn't get to totalitarianism when the King and the Pope were competing sources of ultimate authority; both always had a claim on loyalty, and yet their interests differed sufficiently that even when they happened to align broadly there was a tension between them. Liberty finds its home in the tension between powers, which is why the American system of dividing powers between the branches of the Federal government and between the Federal government and the states has been so conducive to a life in which liberty remains possible. 

Still, how surprising to see the Church come down on the side of defying authority. Well, in a way; in another way he is endorsing the sovereignty of the King of Denmark. He is, however, suggesting that Americans who have taken an oath of obedience to the President of the United States and the officers he appoints would be morally qualified to forswear that oath. 

“Greenland is a territory of Denmark,” Broglio told the BBC Sunday. “It does not seem really reasonable that the United States would attack and occupy a friendly nation.”

Asked whether he was “worried” about the military personnel in his pastoral care, Broglio replied: “I am obviously worried because they could be put in a situation where they’re being ordered to do something which is morally questionable.”

“It would be very difficult for a soldier or a [M]arine or a sailor to by himself disobey an order,” he said. “But strictly speaking, he or she would be, within the realm of their own conscience, it would be morally acceptable to disobey that order, but that’s perhaps putting that individual in an untenable situation — and that’s my concern.”

It's perfectly tenable; I imagine they would be detained in Fort Leavenworth for some time, those two words sharing as their root the Latin tenere, "to hold." Holding the position would lead to one being held for having held the position. A soldier refusing orders because the sovereign of a different nation has a different opinion about the matter is not going to work out congenially, however.