• If you are reading this, you are part of the 1% richest people in the world.

    I can confidently say that because there are so many people living in object poverty. Not poverty as defined by the government, but actual poverty.

    The government likes to define poverty in relative terms. This means that when you are part of a rich society, you can be “below the poverty line” and still be richer than most of the world’s population could ever dream of becoming.

    If you are reading this, you have a device capable of connecting to the Internet, that makes you wealthy.

    But wealth is not just money, it is also goods. I do not consider myself or my family to be well-off. We struggle to pay our monthly bills, we struggle to support our children’s quest for a collage education. It feels like we are always just one paycheck from disaster.

    (more…)

            

  • For my wife:

            

  • My father’s side of the family is from Communist Hungary. I grew up on Hungarian foods, and learned several recipes that I have passed on to friends and family today. This recipe is straight from my Nagymama’s (that means “grandma” in Hungarian) kitchen, this recipe has the flavor of Hungary throughout it. The meat is tender, the broth tasty, and on a cold, winter day, nothing beats it! Remember that the delicate flavor of good, traditional goulash comes from a fine quality Hungarian paprika – look for the Szekezed label, which comes in a metal cannister in the spice sections of many grocery stores. There are usually two types available: hot and sweet. Both have a sweet flavor to them, but the hot one is QUITE hot. For this recipe you want the sweet one, although if you like your goulash to have a bit of bite, you can mix in some of the hot paprika, too!

    Ingredients for goulash:

    (more…)

            

  • The state is constantly looking for weasel words in Supreme Court opinions to further their arrogant subjugation of their subjects. We see this in how they misconstrued the language of —United States V. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) to claim that the Second Amendment only protects militias.

    We see this when they misconstrue —District of Columbia v. Heller, 467 U.S. 837 (2008) to mean that “presumptively constitutional” means that any infringement is constitutional.

    We see this when they misconstrue —New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) to mean that anyplace can be designated as a “sensitive location” where infringements are required. Like defining all of Times Square as a sensitive place.

    The state is constantly looking for any words that could be taken to mean that infringement is allowed.

    —Opinion, United States v. Rahimi, 602 S.Ct. ____ (U.S. 2024) has far too many weasel words for the state to latch onto. Bad facts make for bad laws.

    Schoenthal v. Raoul in Chicago shows exactly this.

    After Rahimi was issued, the state in every case rushed to bring that opinion into their arguments. Not because their case had anything to do with individuals found to be credible threat of physical violence to another who had a court of law issue a domestic violence restraining order against them, but because they wanted to use the weasel words.

    In Schoenthal the state wanted a status hearing to set a supplemental briefing schedule. This is the official way to get more arguments before the court, regardless of the current status of the case.

    The state says it is a joint motion. This is true in fact, but not in spirit.

    The state wants to brief the court regarding how wonderful Rahimi is for their case. The plaintiffs (good guys) just want equal time, if the court allows the state to submit additional arguments.

    The judge said “No”.

    Now, the language the state is trying so hard to get into the record is suggest a law trapped in amber —id.. This is where the Supreme Court explained how to do regulation matching. The state latches on to “it doesn’t have to be an exact match, so our horrible, not even close, matches should be allowed.”

    So the state made a second motion to brief Rahimi to the court. This time they included the language they felt would save their case.

    The judge said “no” a second time.

    So the state, instead of requesting permission to brief the court on Rahimi, submitted a notice of supplemental authority regarding Rahimi. This was not the simple, “We wish to bring to the court’s attention that Rahimi was decided, no, this was a short brief with the state’s arguments.

    Therefore, the court said “no” again, a bit more forcibly.

    MINUTE entry before the Honorable Iain D. Johnston: Ms. Foxx’s notice of supplemental authority [106] is stricken. The Court is aware of Rahimi and has already denied two motions raised in light of Rahimi. The Court is making every effort to issue its opinion in a timely manner, and these filings are hindering those efforts. Please stop.
    —Schoenthal v. Raoul, No. 3:22-cv-50326 (N.D. Ill.)
            

  • Me or your lying eyes?

    For the last four years, the only time I heard about Kamala was when she had messed up, again. It is a feature of her actions, she messes up.

    She was assigned to close the border. Joe used Obama’s term, “Tsar”. As in “Border Tsar.”

    Today, I’m being told, “Kamala was never the border tsar. That’s just a Trump lie.”

    The slogan is an important example of the Party’s technique of using false history to break down the psychological independence of its subjects. Control of the past ensures control of the future, because the past can be treated essentially as a set of conditions that justify or encourage future goals: if the past was idyllic, then people will act to re-create it; if the past was nightmarish, then people will act to prevent such circumstances from recurring. The Party creates a past that was a time of misery and slavery from which it claims to have liberated the human race, thus compelling people to work toward the Party’s goals.
    —United States V. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

    This is where we are today.

    As one X pundit put it, “How have you explained the ‘fine people hoax?’” The consensus was that it wasn’t worth the time or effort. That even if you did manage to get them to acknowledge it is a hoax, within a couple of weeks, they will have forgotten.

    This is getting crazy.

            
  • Something I Noticed
            

  • I know that “taking heat” means something different to 2A people, but I’m talking about temperature heat today. I’ve heard a lot of people whining (and yes, I’m using that term on purpose) about the heat, of late, and I want to address it from a prepping perspective.

    So, over the past several weekends, I’ve been at a variety of reenacting events. None of those events were “modern” or had A/C. Very few of those events had even an electric fan, never mind anything more cooling than that. During the events, temperatures have ranged from 86*F to 104*F, with humidity in the 75% or higher range. One particular day, on July 12th, it was 104*F and 95% humidity where I was. I had no modern means for dealing with that heat.

    When talking about the heat, several people (not on here) have told me…

    • I’m just better at dealing with the heat than most people (which is laughable considering I am sodium deficient at the BEST of times, which is a dangerous thing in high heat situations)
    • the heat has killed people and I’m not taking it seriously enough
    • some people require air conditioning just to live
    • people in the past didn’t have heat like this

    I do agree, the heat has killed some people. I am not the sympathetic ear most people expected when I was told that. I feel bad for the elderly or very young when intense heat happens, because they’re not cognitively able to do the things necessary to not suffer from it. Then again, we more able bodied folks can certainly do things to make their lives easier, and so I don’t consider it a big argument. It’s also a very small number of people. In a major disaster, those people are frankly going to die. I don’t like saying it, but it’s true. If you’re celiac, prone to medical issues, elderly or very young, the likelihood is that you’re going to die. While I work very hard to mitigate that fact in my own prepping, it’s still a fact, and I have dealt with it to the best of my ability. If I die, I die, and I’m not going to whine about it.

    (more…)

            

  • Another week has gone by. The world is still here.

    In an astonishing turn of events, the attempted assassination of Trump is no longer in the news. Instead, all the talk is about the Democrat’s selected, presidential nominee. Amazing.

    X is all a tweet over how Joe’s appearance keeps changing. The one that made me go, “Hmmmm” was the one where the camera angles appear to show that Joe grew 3 to 5 inches while recovering from Covid.

    I’ve been busy with a few different tasks, limiting the amount of time I have for research. I do have a couple of “personal” articles in progress, as well as two case articles.

    Ally has stepped up to the plate and is putting out articles on the regular.

    The store is coming, not this month, but soon enough.

    It will offer items I manufacture or make, virtual products (to support the site), and Ally’s signed books.

    We will be providing links to the unsigned books on Amazon, there are some contractual things in play.

    For me, the biggest question of this week was, “Is Joe still alive?”

    The comments are open, do you have a question for us? Do you have an idea for an article? Where do you stand on the “WTF is going on in the Dem party?”

    Have a great weekend!

            

  • I had an interesting interaction today (I wrote this on Tuesday, July 23). An acquaintance posted this:

    image of text about JD Vance

    Now, I don’t know that much about Vance. I knew he was a vet, and that he wrote a really popular book, and that he was very against Trump until relatively recently. Being me, I went and looked this up. Is Vance selling out American farmland to foreign investors?

    The short answer is, sort of. The long answer is, not really. In my reading, I found out that there are a few properties in Ohio that have gone to foreign investors, but that those properties come with a price. It’s a real price – very high taxes which go to support US owned farmland in Ohio. Now, my understanding of what I was reading is that Vance wants to keep all American property American, and he’s suggested bills in that vein. But being unable to enact those bills NOW, he’s doing the next best thing and making foreign ownership of Ohio farmland very expensive, and lucrative for Ohio farmers.

    I shared a couple of articles (one from DNT.com, and another from ocj.com) that explain Vance’s opinion on farmland, and what the Ohio people think of him (since he’s from there, and those are the people most likely to know him well). I got some fascinating responses. The original poster said that Vance was using AcreTrader to make millions of dollars off of foreign investors (untrue… AcreTrader doesn’t sell to foreign investors at all). Essentially, what I got from her responses was that if someone is making money off of something, then it doesn’t matter if it’s good for the environment, frees the slaves, or ends world hunger… it just doesn’t count.

    Other people chimed in. The OP asked if I supported Vance, and I responded that I didn’t really know yet, as I hadn’t done due diligence in investigating him. I didn’t bother explaining that it doesn’t really matter if I support him or not, because I don’t get to dictate VP choices to the Republican party. I didn’t think it would matter. Check this out:

    screenshot of conversation with names blanked out Money, power, hubris, and self interest. I found that one interesting. I don’t see the problem with money or power, and I have a health self interest myself, so I can’t really complain about it in others. I don’t know Vance well enough to say if he’s engaging in hubris, but that’s one of those things that usually takes care of itself over time. Then the random insert: Kyle Rittenhouse.

    Now, I DO know about Kyle. I like the kid, and I feel like he had to go through an awful lot in a very short amount of time. He was underage, and he probably shouldn’t have been there. As a parent, I would not have allowed my kids to go to what I knew was going to be a riot. But that’s me, and his parents are doing their thing, and considering how polite and well spoken Kyle is, I guess they’re doing pretty well. The kid apparently was putting out dumpster fires and rendering first aid to people before he was attacked and forced to defend himself with deadly force. His attackers played stupid games, and won stupid prizes. *shrug* Regardless of everything else, Kyle was acquitted on all counts. He was found not guilty. The same court system found Trump guilty, and the Left is okay with that finding. But they’re not okay with Kyle’s finding. Me, I want to see more Kyle’s in the world. The kid had more calm and focus that night than most adults in that situation.

    I was not about to explain why Kyle wasn’t a bad person to this group. I reported one comment and blocked the person who made it (it isn’t reflected in the above screenshot because I reported the comment for encouraging violence and I guess FB took it down). I realized this was not a place where I was going to convince anyone of anything, so I just walked out the door.

    That’s when I discovered the secret to making Leftists go absolutely ape shit. I swear, guys, I didn’t do this on purpose, but here it is.

    I left. I said “hey, we’re talking at cross purposes, I’m out of here.” No drama, no messing on other people’s walls. I think that’s crass and there’s no reason for it. If it had been grievous enough, I’d have moved over to my own wall to talk, because that’s *my* virtual living room, and I can say what I want. I don’t mess in other people’s virtual living rooms though. That last commenter in the screenshot above? He paged me because I didn’t answer him.

    He asked in PM to explain what there was to like about Kyle. I encouraged him to do his own research and form his own opinions, and reiterated that I wasn’t there to attempt to change his mind. I had only gone there to present facts, not opinions. He started to get irritated because I wouldn’t engage. Apparently, my not pushing my opinion down his throat was me “being secretive” and “unsure of the basis of my own stance.” I returned to my original statement, that he was welcome to his opinion and that he should form it himself based on his own research, and stated I was not interested in political debate with anyone. It had nothing to do with secrecy and everything to do with not engaging in fruitless arguments that only leave people feeling grumpy.

    I’ve been watching the little dot indicator that says he’s typing something. It’s been flickering on and off for a while now. I think maybe his (her?) brain is circling down the drain…

    So, if you want to cause a Leftist to break, simply don’t engage. I’m actually kind of enjoying watching the internal meltdown. Does that make me a bad person?

            

  • Aside, there are two cases pending articles. I’m working on them.

    I do not have many friends. It is difficult for me to reach out to my friends to keep in touch with them. Since I work from home, I’m not forced to interact with co-workers. So, few friends.

    Note, I use the word “friend” to mean “friend”, not somebody that I work with or classmates. A friend is a friend.

    When I left the horrid state of Maryland for the green, green hills of NH, I wasn’t leaving friends behind. My friend and mentor had died a few years earlier. With my kids graduated, there was nothing holding me there.

    For six months I lived near the Vermont border while commuting 80+ miles to just outside the inner beltway of Boston. I did that commute 4.5 days a week. On Friday, I left work in Boston and drove back to my family in PA. On Sunday, I drove back to NH.

    I was staying with a family as a boarder. I had met her in an online game. We had become online friends. When she got married, Allyson did it for her.

    During the months, I became friends with her. She, and her husband, were conservatives. They had the same sort of beliefs that I had. I had many enjoyable conversations with her.

    Note, the husband is currently in the “special prison” for those special prisoners who wouldn’t survive in gen pop. I was more than willing to help put him there.

    Regardless, we were friends. I helped her when I could. When they lost their house a few years later (husband’s fault), we opened our home to them. When he was kicked out, we continued to support her.

    There was many a rainy day that I worked on her car because we were all short on money.

    She ate at our table, shared in our lives. She was here for Christmas and for other holidays.

    A true friend.

    I do not talk to her anymore. Not at all.

    There is a part of the abortion argument that flat out escapes me. It is how so many women think that because the federal government is no longer blocking anti-abortion laws, that they are at a considerable risk.

    My friend is a few months older than I am. She isn’t going to get pregnant. It isn’t going to happen. Having access to an abortion is meaningless to her.

    What about her daughters? One daughter is happy making babies with her husband. The other daughter is happy being an Aunt. That one can’t think of a man sexually, see not above about her step-father being in the special prison.

    Nether of her daughters is at risk of an unintended pregnancy. So why is abortion so important to her?

    My youngest is also very upset that the federal government is blocked from blocking anti-abortion legislation. She considers it to be part of “woman’s health”.

    It is essential to understand, abortions are not banned in this state.

    Roe v. Wade found that women had a right to abortions under because they had a right to privacy. Because they had a right to privacy, what happened between the woman and her doctor was none of your business. Thus, abortions are a right under a woman’s right to medical privacy.

    Dobbs said, “No. There is no right to abortion hidden in the Constitution. The plain text of the Fourth Amendment does not implicate the conduct in question. There is nothing in this Nation’s historical tradition of regulations that is similar to ‘right to abortion’”.

    Having made the statement, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the question to the states.

    Some states had laws that instantly went into effect, banning abortions. Other states enshrined abortion “rights” into their laws. Still, other states didn’t do a damn thing.

    But the Dobbs case broke my friend.

    She blamed Trump, personally, for strangers in other states having restricted access to abortions. Having decided that Trump was “evil,” she then dove into the Kool-Aid and drank all that she could and more.

    She went from “there is no evidence that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted anyone” to “Kavanaugh was credibly accused of sexual assault and is not qualified to be on the Court.”

    It happened in the course of a few days.

    She went from “Thomas is a great justice.” to “Justice is a political hack, he is slimy, in the pocket of the wealthy.”

    Her mind broke. It broke because it was so obvious to her, that Dobbs was decided incorrectly, that the only possible reason was corruption or malfeasance.

    If the justices on the Supreme Court, whom she trusted, whom she respected, could betray her, then what else are they betraying.

    Currently, she is of the “vote not Trump.” There is not a single thing that Trump did as president that she respects. All of it was destroyed, for her, with that one opinion.

    I believe that I am willing to question just about anything. There are some things which are locked in stone. Not because “they” told me to believe that way, but because I did my research and in that research grounded my opinions.

    I like to believe that I am moral. I have a moral code which I follow. Part of that code is to be willing to question my moral code and my opinions, to be able to separate facts from opinions, truth from wishful thinking.

    My friend is lost. I do not expect her to ever recover. I will pray for her and hope she finds happyness in her new status as a subject of the state.