Fanatics

We’re still on the road, by the time you read this, we’ll be with our kids in Indiana before heading down to the new homestead.

Dinner is homemade Brats, The tip jar is at the link and I thank those of you who donated to the cause. You are why I keep doing this.

You know, one good definition of a fanatic is someone who, no matter how much evidence is placed in front of them, still believes a falsehood, and is willing to kill people and break things, in the pursuit of defending that falsehood. A prime example from history were the true believers in the SS that were still killing people after the bunker fell in Berlin, or the general staff of Imperial Japan that wanted to depose the emperor so that they could continue to fight against the US, even after two nuclear bombs proved that the “invincibility of the Japanese race” was so much make-believe.

Today we have our own examples. Take the Associated Press, for example.

(PLEASE take them, far away from me.)

Even after Trump’s tariff gambit was more successful than most of us dreamed of, they run articles like this: Trump is getting the world economy he wants — but the risk to growth could spoil his victory lap They start with “Trading partners from the European Union to Japan to Vietnam appear to be acceding to the president’s demands to accept higher costs — in the form of high tariffs — for the privilege of selling their wares to the United States.” Uh, that is an unquestionable victory for Trump…

But it appears to be ashes in their mouths, and they can’t admit that he won this one, he was right, and ALL the experts, all the “smartest people in the room” who know absolutely everything about international finance, ALL of which said that this was a disaster in the making, were WRONG. By the way, if it turns out that I am wrong, and this turns out to be the debacle that the left continues to scream it is, I’ll eat crow here in print. We’ll see.

So instead they trot out: “High tariffs are still likely to raise prices for American consumers, dampen the Federal Reserve’s ability to lower interest rates, and make the U.S. economy less efficient over time. Democrats say the middle class and poor will ultimately pay for the tariffs.”

Uh yeah, sort of; what tariffs are, is a thing that raises the price of a thing, so that you look at alternatives, like “buying American,” and the maker of the thing, looks at alternatives, like “make it in the US.”

Does this mean that prices on European and Asian made stuff is going up? Oh yes, most likely. Is this a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on whether you buy most of your stuff from European makers. Honestly, I don’t remember the last thing I bought that was make anywhere in Europe… Probably when we went to Scotland a couple years ago. Oh, some tea for Kiti. Yeah, I can live without that.

Can I say the same about Chinese made stuff? Well, no, primarily because so much stuff is made in China that it’s impossible not to buy from them currently. Tariffs, however, are likely to change that, because it may become cheaper to make it in the US than to pay the tariff on importing it. Still, I am prepared to suffer the price increase short term pain, for the long-term benefit of hurting the PRC.

Then they trot out some “expert” that worked for Biden, (Uh, yeah, because he was so successful that obviously he had good people working for him. Damn, I just sprained my tongue.) that wants to tell us how striking it is that people think this is a victory, and “don’t you mouth breathers know that it’s not in your best interest? You should be doing what we tell you, not what you think is best!” And in late breaking news, the third quarter economics report just hit, and oh my, 3% growth, well over expected… I can’t wait to see how they spin this one.

See that’s part of the failure of the DNC and their lapdog press, they continue to play the hand they like, even when the opponent has three aces showing, sure that there’s no possible way the opponent could have a hand that beats two pairs! (yes, I know that three of a kind beats two pair, that’s the POINT.)

Finally they spend some time Demo-splaining how “No, really, what you think is good is actually bad, up is down, and Oh, by the way, our pet judges will rule all of this stuff unconstitutional anyway, so it’s never going to come to pass.”

If that’s the card you’re counting on to win, that “anything good will be overruled by some District court Judge because they’re the real government…” You, son, are setting yourself up to be fitted with a hemp necktie. Eventually, if the SCOTUS doesn’t judicially cut some folks off at the knees, the citizens of the country are going to do it for them.

Trump was elected based on promises that he would do just what he is doing. Having some district court judge tell the President that he’s not allowed to do what the constitution gives him the power to do, is a nonstarter.

Then we have the ICJ (International Court of Justice, the senior court for the UN) which has ruled that if any nation doesn’t do what the UN tells it to do on the subject of climate change, they’re committing a “crime against humanity” and can be sued in the ICJ by ‘poor nations’ and get awarded money from the guilty nation. In short, if everyone doesn’t do what we say, we’re going to take away your stuff and give it to other people.

Two problems with that, of course: 1) it’s a “non-binding decision” (that means it doesn’t mean anything.) and 2) while the UN has a judicial arm (the aforementioned ICJ) it does not have an ENFORCEMENT arm. I’m reminded of the apocryphal quote by Andy Jackson, “John Marshal has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Trump has already pulled US funding from the UN HRC, the UN RWA, and is looking at pulling funding from UNESCO. I wonder how well the UN would like it if the US just completely defunded the UN, and invited them to “get off my lawn, or get arrested, after you pay the city of New York the $156,000 you owe in unpaid tickets.” Truth be told, I’m really hard pressed to see any value to the US in membership to the UN. Let them hate us for free.

I’m going to change the subject now and talk about words and their meanings. We seem to be spending a lot of time lately using words that don’t mean what we seem to think they mean. Take the most overused word of them all, these days: Terrorism.

Quite simply, according to the encyclopedia Britanica: Terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Emphasis MINE.

So let’s stop calling a drug addicted frequent flier to the local hoosegow for drugs and violent assaults a Terrorist, and claiming you are going to charge him with Terrorism. Shit, I would throw that out of court, and I would happily see this mutt hung by the neck until dead.

There was no political agenda here, there was no attempt to cause the population to “be afraid, be very afraid.”

This was just some drug addict that lost his fucking mind, and decided to slash up a bunch of people, because it was Saturday and he didn’t have anything better to do. Hell if you really want to get mad about something, get mad about the failure of the judicial system to put this dirtbag behind bars in a meaningful way before now.

This isn’t the only crime that has been mislabeled as terrorism, just the latest in a long string of them. Seriously, don’t use that word to cover things that are just ‘some animal that walks on two legs went crazy.’

Arguably the second most overused word is Treason. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.” US Constitution.

All the acts that Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Samantha Powers, and Susan Rice appear to have been involved in, no matter how heinous, only make the hurtle “Treason” if they were actually levying war against the US, or giving aid and comfort to “enemies” which is legally defined as “someone we are at war with.” Now if you can show that they conspired with Iran to attack us, then you get “treason.” Short of that? It’s a leap to far.

Use the words that actually fit. Conspiracy to defraud, Conspiracy to subvert an election, Evidence tampering, Hell, if some of the charges I’ve seen claimed (that Obama had formally targeted Trump for assassination) are true, you get Conspiracy to Commit Murder.

Treason? Let’s stop with the melodrama.

The Final piece for today is an arrow pointing at

All the Expanded Shipyard Capacity Won't Help us if we Don't Do this First

Sal is definitely on point here, and there’s some great information. If you’re not reading Sal daily, you’re missing out.

Well, I’m still on the road, so this one is going to be short as well. Next week will finish up the road portion of this trip, although we’ll be living in the RV until a house is built. But I expect next week’s post to the the last short one.

QOTD: "As always, President Trump and the entire Administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans," Whitehouse Spokeswoman Taylor Rogers, in reply to questions about the ICJ ruling.

Yours in Service,

William Lehman