vxbush 11/29/2021 6:11:31 AM

1

Good morning, campers. Even though the South African medical folks say Omicron is hardly worth discussing, New York has already declared a state of emergency. I expect lockdowns to begin again, even though most SA patients had two days worth of sniffles and that was it. If this was so radically important, why the rate to release the info on Friday during Thanksgiving festivities? Yeah, we know why. 

Some believe a lockdown would be the government's way to keep inflation under control, even though I'm not aware of that ever having been done in the past. Personally, I expect them to use this as an excuse to start getting rid of physical money. Digital dollars are easier to track. 

Occasional Reader 11/29/2021 6:33:36 AM

2

Reply to vxbush in 1:

if you are not panicking!!!!!!!, you are guilty of sedition and insurrection and treason.

vxbush 11/29/2021 6:35:19 AM

3

In #2 Occasional Reader said: if you are not panicking!!!!!!!, you are guilty of sedition and insurrection and treason.

Yes, clearly. My ability to follow the law is completely dependent on my opinion of a bug. 

Occasional Reader 11/29/2021 6:35:47 AM

4

In #1 vxbush said: Some believe a lockdown would be the government's way to keep inflation under control,

I am not an economist, although I did stay at a Holiday Inn express during the holidays (really!). But anyway, that makes little sense to me. Inflation means too much money chasing too little in goods and services. Lockdowns will decrease the supply of goods and services. Meanwhile, government will happily print more “stimulus” money. That means more inflation, not less.

vxbush 11/29/2021 6:38:57 AM

5

In #4 Occasional Reader said: I am not an economist, although I did stay at a Holiday Inn express during the holidays (really!). But anyway, that makes little sense to me. Inflation means too much money chasing too little in goods and services. Lockdowns will decrease the supply of goods and services. Meanwhile, government will happily print more “stimulus” money. That means more inflation, not less.

Oh, I didn't say it made any sense. I'm saying I'm seeing folks saying this. The fact that this also means that people won't be able to get items that can't be built because of lockdowns means seriously bad news. But sure, let's use this to reduce inflation. 🙄

JCM 11/29/2021 7:28:18 AM

6

Reply to vxbush in 1:

What have we been saying?

As soon as the scare for one wears out, a new variant.

Occasional Reader 11/29/2021 8:00:20 AM

7

In #6 JCM said: As soon as the scare for one wears out, a new variant.

"'Keep the skeer on'em'."

-Nathan Bedford Fauci

JCM 11/29/2021 8:10:26 AM

8

Reply to Occasional Reader in 7:

Thinking that when I wrote it....

JCM 11/29/2021 8:27:13 AM

9

In Case With Global Implications, Finland Puts Christians On Trial For Their Faith

Rasanen and Pohjola are being charged with “hate speech” for respectively writing and publishing a 24-page 2004 booklet that explains basic Christian theology about sex and marriage, which reserves sex exclusively for within marriage, which can only consist of one man and one woman, for life. The Finnish prosecutor claims centuries-old Christian teachings about sex “incite hatred” and violate legal preferences for government-privileged identity groups.

vxbush 11/29/2021 8:34:39 AM

10

In #9 JCM said: How long before it is here?

Too soon, no matter when it starts. I hope and pray I am wrong and it never gets here.

Kosh's Shadow 11/29/2021 8:50:11 AM

11

In #9 JCM said: In Case With Global Implications, Finland Puts Christians On Trial For Their Faith

So when will they put Muslims on trial for publishing hatred of Jews?

I suppose they'd put me on trial for this post first.
So, I might as well include this

Occasional Reader 11/29/2021 8:50:37 AM

12

In #9 JCM said: How long before it is here?

Several tens of millions of armed Christians here might not be so compliant about it.  

Kosh's Shadow 11/29/2021 8:51:23 AM

13

Reply to vxbush in 10:

Sorry, but ACTING on your faith can get you in legal trouble already. Just ask some Christian bakers and florists.

Occasional Reader 11/29/2021 8:52:53 AM

14

In #11 Kosh's Shadow said: So when will they put Muslims on trial for publishing hatred of Jews?

That's different, because it's a wonderfully nuanced expression of a rich, vibrant, exotic culture.

/IIRC, Mark Steyn related a court decision from somewhere in Scandanavia or perhaps Holland, that basically reached that conclusion

vxbush 11/29/2021 8:56:26 AM

15

In #13 Kosh's Shadow said: Sorry, but ACTING on your faith can get you in legal trouble already. Just ask some Christian bakers and florists.

True, but so far those are civil cases, yes? The police have not gone out and arrested Christians for their beliefs on sex. 

Occasional Reader 11/29/2021 9:43:26 AM

16

And Happy Hanukkah, AKA Armed Jews Week:

https://davekopel.org/Religion/armed-jews-week.html

buzzsawmonkey 11/29/2021 9:48:35 AM

17

In #9 JCM said: How long before it is here?

Reply to vxbush in 10:

It is here.  What do you think the cake and flower persecutions are?  The gay-rights movement had some validity in the days when there were still sodomy laws with draconian penalties, and laws forbidding the serving of alcohol to homosexuals.  But for many decades now the sole purpose of the gay-rights movement has been to destroy the First Amendment without having to repeal it.

vxbush 11/29/2021 10:16:19 AM

18

In #17 buzzsawmonkey said: It is here.  What do you think the cake and flower persecutions are?

Again, I ask--were these not just civil lawsuits? Were the police the ones arresting the individuals? Yes, it's bad. Yes, it's ridiculous in the light of the First Amendment. But Canada has arrested a pastor for breaking laws, and the police arrested him. Which police officers arrested the cake bakers and florists? 

buzzsawmonkey 11/29/2021 10:24:12 AM

19

Reply to vxbush in 18:

I forget whether it was in Washington State, Oregon, or Colorado---or several of them---where the state "human rights commission(s)" got involved in the suit and joined the parties attacking the service provider in question.  So, yes---there was state police power brought in on the side of persecutor-plaintiff.  IIRC, the Colorado cake baker has been in court up, down, and sideways now for going on a decade.

doppelganglander 11/29/2021 10:54:38 AM

20

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 19:
I believe there was a case in Canada where an evangelical pastor was arrested for preaching Biblical sexuality. I don't recall how it turned out.

lucius septimius 11/29/2021 11:02:01 AM

21

buzzsawmonkey 11/29/2021 11:03:13 AM

22

The gay-rights movement is not, and never has been, a civil rights movement.  It has always been a "human rights" movement---though it has spent much effort and energy over the last 40-odd years in blurring the distinction between the two.  Nevertheless, the difference is profound.

The Constitution exists to establish a government of limited powers. Part of that limitation---augmenting the limitations on the government done by enumerating what powers it has---is the limitation imposed by civil rights, which are rights held by the individual against the government.  That is to say, the only legitimate civil rights under the Constitution are the rights which permit the individual to slap the government down when it overreaches, the way you slap a naughty dog on the snout with a rolled-up newspaper.

"Human rights" are special privileges granted by the government to favored groups---and there is no place for "group rights," or "group privileges" under the Constitution. 

The gay-rights movement's rhetoric and manifestoes and declarations have usually used the term "human rights"---because there are no civil rights that have ever been denied to homosexuals.  They have never been denied the right to trial by jury, or the right against self-incrimination, or the right to vote. They have never been denied, by law---as blacks were, in the past, in some jurisdictions---the right to live where they chose.  There is no legitimacy to the gay-rights movement claiming it is a civil rights movement.

During the Dade County civil rights ordinance campaign, which most people know as "the Anita Bryant campaign," the gay-rights activists were constantly using the term "human rights," not "civil rights."  Their use of the one term in preference over the other appeared to be merely a form of plaint that "we're human too"---but it was actually a term of art, and very carefully chosen.  It is much like the references to Obama in the 2008 campaign as being "post-racial," which was intended to convey to the rubes that he would lead us at last past social obsession with things racial, but which to the Leftist cognoscenti indicated that he would be a race warrior who would seek to oppress the whites whom the Left considers always and irredeemably "racist."

The gay-rights movement in the US was founded by Stalinists in the 1950s, and taken over by Maoists and SDSers following the Stonewall Riots. Once upon a time, such strong and consistent connections to subversive elements might have merited closer looks at their writings and objectives, but our lazy and agenda-driven Leftist media could not be bothered with this, and most of the opponents of same-sex marriage did not think to delve into this history.  If they had, they'd have discovered ample writings which stated that the abolition or destruction of marriage was one of the movement's oft-stated and oft-celebrated goals---a goal which the movement has never repudiated, and has not, in the course of the marriage agitation, discussed at all.

So..."marriage" has gone from the movement's must-destroy to the movement's absolutely-must-have---this, despite the increasing, accelerating acceptance of civil-union protection.  Indeed, California had a civil-union law that was "marriage" in all but name---yet look at the acrimonious fight (and aftermath) that attended the Prop 8 vote, which was to decree same-sex marriage in the state despite the already-extant civil-union law. 

Why was that word "marriage" sufficiently important to cause this upheaval? Because "marriage" was the key to giving the gay-rights movement a toehold in equal-protection law, i.e., giving the movement a sheep's pelt of "civil rights" claims to cover the human-rights wolf beneath.  The movement had tried for years to equate itself to the black Civil Rights Movement (much to the annoyance of many blacks, until recently)---and the false equivalence which the movement made (and the judges bought) between same-sex marriage (the invention of a new kind of marriage) and the anti-miscegenation law rulings of the 1960s, gave the movement its chance.  The anti-miscegenation rulings struck down laws that voided otherwise-valid traditional marriages on the basis of the extraneous element of race. That is not the same thing as refusing to legalize an entirely new form of marriage, which is what same-sex marriage is.

Now that it has gained its toehold in "equal protection law," the gay-rights movement has a siege platform from which to attack other people's freedom of speech, freedom of association, and free exercise of religion, on "equal protection" grounds. That is the entire reason for the push for same-sex marriage.

Was the passage of laws pre-emptively banning legalization of same-sex marriage ill-advised?  Probably.   Conservatives, as usual, allowed themselves to be suckered by the Left; passing a pre-emptive ban on same-sex marriage---something that at the time did not exist—set conservatives up to appear, spuriously, to be in the position of those racists who had supported banning interracial unions.  By banning something that did not exist, conservatives called that thing into being and set themselves up for the Left's knockout punch.

In any event, same-sex marriage should have been opposed from the beginning entirely on the basis that:

a) A movement founded, inter alia, upon opposition to marriage and dedication to its destruction has no standing to demand it;

b) Civil union laws meet whatever needs the community might have, the more so since the movement has, for decades, insisted on the difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples;

c) If the gay-rights movement is now arguing that there is no difference between marrying a person of the same sex or a person of the opposite sex, it has tacitly admitted that same-sex desire is a personal choice, and consequently wholly undeserving of any "rights."

buzzsawmonkey 11/29/2021 11:06:00 AM

23

In #21 lucius septimius said: I am about ready to kill my brother in law.

Don't spoil the hide!  Think how smart it will look as an area rug in your man-cave.

vxbush 11/29/2021 11:24:35 AM

24

In #19 buzzsawmonkey said: I forget whether it was in Washington State, Oregon, or Colorado---or several of them---where the state "human rights commission(s)" got involved in the suit and joined the parties attacking the service provider in question.  So, yes---there was state police power brought in on the side of persecutor-plaintiff.  IIRC, the Colorado cake baker has been in court up, down, and sideways now for going on a decade.

It's been so long, I forgot the "human rights commission(s)" were involved. Thanks for that reminder, but I'd appreciate more details about which ones were active. I'm agreeing that Christians are being persecuted; please don't misunderstand that. But having the police arrest you like you are a criminal is the next step, and we're there. 

In #20 doppelganglander said: I believe there was a case in Canada where an evangelical pastor was arrested for preaching Biblical sexuality. I don't recall how it turned out.

That's the one I'm discussing. The case isn't over yet; he hasn't yet gone to court, that I'm aware of. 

doppelganglander 11/29/2021 11:49:13 AM

25

Reply to lucius septimius in 21:

Best not. You don't want to spend the rest of your life making license plates along side former governors.

vxbush 11/29/2021 1:06:41 PM

26

So the vaccine mandate lawsuits against the OSHA portion of the mandate were all routed to the 5th Circuit for review, combining over 30 lawsuits. Today, the CMS (Medicaid, Medicare) mandate also had an injunction levied against it by a court on behalf of several states that filed against it. 

Biden is 0-2 in court on this, and now I'm seeing that 

vxbush 11/29/2021 1:07:27 PM

27

....ahem. Excuse me. 

Now the White House is signaling they aren't going to enforce a vaccine mandate against federal employees. 

vxbush 11/29/2021 1:09:34 PM

28

And then we have another fauxcahontes: 

Director of Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research in Canada Forced to Resign for Being a Fake

JCM 11/29/2021 1:30:14 PM

29

Reply to vxbush in 28:

She felt she was authentic? Isn't that enough?

I mean it's good enough for sex, why not for a culture?

Kosh's Shadow 11/29/2021 1:45:09 PM

30

In #27 vxbush said: Now the White House is signaling they aren't going to enforce a vaccine mandate against federal employees. 

I like PJMedia's headline:

MANDATE CAVE: White House Suspends Vaccine Mandate for Fed Employees

JCM 11/29/2021 1:46:28 PM

31

Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 30:

Will those already fired get their jobs back?

vxbush 11/29/2021 1:49:25 PM

32

In #29 JCM said: She felt she was authentic? Isn't that enough? I mean it's good enough for sex, why not for a culture?

I know, right? It's like facts actually matter!

Occasional Reader 11/29/2021 1:49:33 PM

33

Well, I got Boosted today... so let's see what the news is about the OMG! Variant.

I also went, like, totallly online shopping!!!! and got some outerwear from REI.

Oh, and also, I worked. 

Kosh's Shadow 11/29/2021 1:51:57 PM

34

Occasional Reader 11/29/2021 1:53:19 PM

35

In #28 vxbush said: And then we have another fauxcahontes: 

Weird how our Western society is supposedly steeped top to bottom in "white supremacy", yet we constantly have the phenomenon of white people lying to pass for colored... oops, sorry, "of color" ('cause that term is so, so much better).  

Occasional Reader 11/29/2021 2:58:06 PM

36

buzzsawmonkey 11/29/2021 3:43:32 PM

37

In #36 Occasional Reader said: Buzz, our little buddy "JQuip" over at Insty is quite a piece of work, isn't he. 

He's great at the word salad, and at dodging and weaving to avoid being held to account.  

What I'd like to know is what he means by the term "Jewish Supremacist," which he's deployed several times without explanation.  I have no idea what he's babbling about there.  His use of the term is all the more interesting since a few weeks ago he tried to pass himself off as a Jew in the course of some exchange or other.  He was obviously lying, and hasn't tried it since.