2020·07·04 KMAG Daily Thread

Guest Author, Thomas Jefferson et. al.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  • He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  • He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
  • He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
  • He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
  • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
  • He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
  • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
  • For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  • For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
  • For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
  • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
  • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
  • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  • He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

My comments

A lot of us like to highlight the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Declaration of Independence

I even have a hat, which has on it the Betsy Ross flag, and those words are incused onto the stripes. Very politically incorrect! And not coincidentally, very historically correct.

But as much as I like those words, to me, that’s not the most important part of the Declaration.

It’s not just that we have rights. That alone doesn’t justify replacing one government with another. And explaining why our Founders were doing that was the point of the document.

For that you need to understand what a government is for. And that is explained in the very next “self evident” truth. (Yes, the list of “self evident” truths continues after the commonly quoted part, there are more of them.)

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Declaration of Independence

If this is the proper purpose of a government, and indeed it is, then it follows that a government that no longer does so–say, one that steps on people’s necks for the benefit of others–has failed in its only legitimate purpose and should be replaced. And indeed, that’s the very next, and last, “self evident” truth.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Declaration of Independence.

The document then goes on to make it clear that this should be done with great caution, and when all other options are exhausted. Then it goes on to argue that, indeed, all other options had been exhausted, so it was now time to go that route. (It’s all very neatly laid out in a logical progression, which is why it isn’t a “ramble” in the way that some of my less-carefully-crafted posts are.)

The Declaration does not mention violent overthrow, but it was clear just from looking around, during those early summer days of 1776, that the rampant, over-reaching government they were complaining about was prepared to fight to maintain its authority and its alleged “right” to be what it was. And if King George was willing to do that, then he was certainly not going to be happy to be told, “not only should you not do those things, you shouldn’t do anything here at all.”

The replacement government would, indeed, contain many mechanisms to contain it, and mechanisms to peacefully reform it, because the Founders really didn’t like having to go to war to protect their rights, even if they recognized the necessity. They did what they could to avoid it being necessary ever again.

(A monarchy claiming divine sanction cannot be reformed from within; it must either come to the realization it has no divine sanction, or undergo some other change of conscience, or be forced to reform from the outside, or be destroyed. That second-to-last one is problematic, since the monarchy is left in a position to try to regain what it had lost, and it will want to do so.)

But let’s get back to the “self evident” truths (see, this is a ramble, but I’ll get there eventually). They are, in summation, an exposition of the enlightenment-era theory of rights and government. God made us in such a way that rights are a part of our nature; governments should protect those rights, not interfere with them. If a government does interfere with the rights, it’s violating the rights it is supposed to be protecting, therefore it’s not a proper government and its victims have the right to alter or abolish it.

I can certainly get along with those who argue this way (assuming that they have a proper notion of “rights,” a rather involved subject which the Declaration doesn’t take up, no doubt due to space limitations).

But there are a couple of things that stand out to me.

I’ve been putting “self evident” in scare quotes. That’s because it’s quite clear, based on prior history, that these truths are anything but self-evident. Many, maybe even most, people don’t believe them. And the Founders were certainly aware of that, they didn’t say, “These truths are self-evident,” but rather that “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” They were self-evident to them. But not to many others.

Indeed, if the truths were self-evident, we’d never have to rise up against government, because the government would restrain itself as a matter of due course. The events of July 4, 1776 (and the war that was ongoing on that date) would have been unnecessary and this would just be another early summer day here in North America, a proud Commonwealth country.

Of course there’s another issue, too. How does one know God wanted people to have these rights? That’s the starting assumption with the Founders’ theory of rights. The Christians and Deists both believed God wants us to have rights, and that was why we have them to begin with. But it is a pretty specific statement, involving two highly abstract concepts (rights and God), and therefore it’s one which ought not to be taken as axiomatic.

So, how do you know God wants you to have these rights? Have you examined this? Now, I’m the village atheist here, so my response to the question is that it’s a non-sequitur, but most of you reading this aren’t atheists, so I actually ask in all earnest whether you have examined this issue. Because I really hope you have an answer for it that satisfies you even if it cannot satisfy me.

It’s an important point for you to be clear on, because from what I have seen, many of those who believe there is a God do not have an answer for it and thus do not believe rights come from God. In other words, they come to the same end conclusion an atheist does (“rights do not come from God”), even if for a very different reason.

So wouldn’t it be useful to have some argument for rights that gets to the correct conclusion in some totally different way? To use on both of these groups of people? Even if there weren’t a single atheist on Earth, and even if everyone on earth were Christian, it’d be a good thing to be able to prove inalienable rights exist, without referencing God.

Why? Because so much of Leftism is based on the perspective that since rights don’t come from God, they don’t actually exist. Or at the very least, they’re just a societal convention or “construct” that we simply implement through our government. It serves the Left, therefore, to put forth the notion that if rights don’t come from God, then they don’t really exist in any meaningful sense since a right granted by government can clearly be alienated at the government’s whim. So it’s not really a right.

It’s actually a false choice. Rights can exist, even if they do not come from God. But the Left just loves it when people fail to see that it’s a false choice; it delivers many Christians and almost every atheist into their camp. And anyone on our side who insists that those are the only two alternatives is therefore actually helping the Left. Because people are much more likely to align their politics with their religious convictions, than to change their religious convictions to match their politics. So if you browbeat someone into accepting that there are only two choices: 1) adopt my religion or a similar one or 2) stop believing there is such a thing as rights…they’ll usually pick number 2. Now I know that you’d much rather they pick door number 1, but realistically, by setting their desire for rights to exist against their deepest convictions, you’re much more likely to goad them into picking door number 2.

So I hope I’ve convinced you of the political utility of a non-religiously-based argument for the existence of rights, even if you yourself have no need of it.

And if you do a bit of logical deduction, you’ll realize that I believe there is one. Because A) I can’t possibly believe the religious argument and B) I’m here even so, not going off helping to demolish statues.

So what is this non-religious argument? Well…it’s long. I’m actually going to point you to an article by Craig Biddle of the Objective Standard. In that article, he summarizes Ayn Rand’s theory of rights. But he doesn’t just do that, he has to discuss her theory of morality before he can cover rights, because, it turns out, rights aren’t a political concept, but a moral/ethical one! (Rand uses those two words interchangeably, which drives the Left nuts.) That’s why a theory of politics can’t deny them, because they exist before you even start talking about politics.

“Wait,” you say, “you can’t have morals without God!” Well, wrong, but thank you for helping the Left by trying to herd all non-believers their way.

Understanding what rights are needed for, gives you a proper definition of rights (rather than a short list of examples), and you then have to tools to assess whether some alleged right really is one.

Like I said, it gets long. But here it is. Go down about a third of the way to the section titled “Ayn Rand’s Observation-Based Morality.” https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2011/08/ayn-rand-theory-rights/

Not everyone will agree with this (Ayn Rand’s morality is hard for some to stomach, largely because she deliberately uses words with some bad connotations to describe it), nor will everyone or agree it’s the best possible defense of “rights” but, the point is, it can be done. You do not have to buy into the Left’s assertion that anyone (believer or non-believer) who does not believe God grants rights has no logical alternative but to become a Leftist, an assertion that serves the Left, not us.

A Reminder Of Today’s Issues.

Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American People...Our campaign represents a true existential threat, like they’ve never seen before.

Then-Candidate Donald J. Trump

Lawyer Appeasement Section

OK now for the fine print.

This is the WQTH Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Political correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines,  here, with an addendum on 20191110.

We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.

And remember Wheatie’s Rules:

1. No food fights
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. The gun is always loaded.
4a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty.
5. Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy.
6. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
7. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

(Hmm a few extras seem to have crept in.)

Coin of The Day

I could point you to the Bicentennial quarter, half dollar and dollar for this. And you can fairly readily obtain proofs of these coins for a fairly low price. (They don’t turn up in circulation. Even the quarter is under-represented in circulation once one corrects for its age and its mintage; people apparently keep them when they get them.)

Naah, time for something completely different.

1794 silver dollar, the first to be minted by the United States under our Constitution.

Once the Mint had hired bonded officers, it was able to start producing silver and gold coinage, starting in 1794. A small number of these coins 1758 of them to be exact, called the “Flowing Hair Dollar” was produced in 1794, a much larger number, 160,295 in 1795. (In 1796 the portrait of Liberty was changed greatly, and the eagle was changed more subtly.) Today, best estimates are that about 4,000 to 7,500 of them still exist, with maybe 150-250 in uncirculated condition. Even the rattiest uncirculated example is going to cost around $60,000; in Extra Fine condition, it drops to a mere $12,000. But those are prices for a 1795, not a 1794. For a 1794, expect to pay an even million dollars for a ratty uncirculated coin, and $300,000 for an extra fine.

The most ever paid for a rare coin was $10,000,000, and it was for a 1794 dollar (named the “Contursi Specimen” after one of its former owners) that, under detailed examination has to be one of the first made, probably the first one made of those that still survive. (We know this because the dies that stamp out the coins themselves degrade with use; one can tell the difference between coins struck from fresh dies versus ones from dies that were getting tired, and if you’re really good at that sort of thing, you can tell new from almost, almost new, and so on.)

The Contursi Specimen 1794 dollar. Is this the very first dollar the US Mint ever made?

The coin has a silver plug (you can see part of its outline below the eagle’s beak), possibly to bring the silver content up to standard, but it also has “adjustment marks” (file marks across the surface, you can see them at 2 and 8-10 o’clock on the obverse, and 5-8 o’clock on the reverse) used to reduce the weight of the coin. Many claim that that coin was the very first US dollar made, and their argument is strong but (to me) not really conclusive. In any case a company named Legend Numismatics won the thing in an auction for over $7 million and then asked to have their bid increased to ten million. Just for bragging rights! (Legend, by the way, is a table worth stopping by at coin shows–they have absolutely killer, high grade stuff. [Just try not to drool.] I really want to go through their dumpster someday; their rejects would look fantastic in my collection. Come to think of it, I did get a coin in one of their auctions, once; it was definitely not one of their finer offerings.)

Standard disclaimer: Neither this, nor any other coin I show here, is one I own. In some cases I own a similar coin, but by no means all or even most of them. I certainly couldn’t afford to even think about paying ten million dollars for any coin.

Obligatory PSA/Reminder

Just one more thing, my standard Public Service Announcement. We don’t want to forget this!!!

I hope this guy isn’t rotting in the laogai somewhere!

中国是个混蛋 !!!
Zhōngguò shì gè hùndàn !!!
China is asshoe !!!

580 thoughts on “2020·07·04 KMAG Daily Thread

  1. As monuments fall, Confederate carving has size on its side

    As statues of figures from America’s slave-owning past come down across the nation, the largest Confederate monument ever crafted may outlast them all

    By KATE BRUMBACK and RUSS BYNUM Associated Press
    July 4, 2020, 1:30 PM
    6 min read


    STONE MOUNTAIN, Ga. — Some statues of figures from America’s slave-owning past have been yanked down by protesters, others dismantled by order of governors or city leaders. But the largest Confederate monument ever crafted — colossal figures carved into the solid rock of a Georgia mountainside — may outlast them all.

    Stone Mountain’s supersized sculpture depicting Gen. Robert E. Lee, Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gen. Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson mounted on horseback has special protection enshrined in Georgia law.

    Liked by 11 people

  2. “Indeed, if the truths were self-evident, we’d never have to rise up against government, because the government would restrain itself as a matter of due course. ”


    But evil is self-evident, and government does not restrain itself in any way from engaging in evil, quite the opposite. Just look at all the lawlessness and evil deeds committed by Hussein the Usurper, and all his craven minions.

    So whether something is self-evident or not would not seem to be a determining factor as to whether government restrains itself.

    Liked by 8 people

  3. Liked by 17 people

  4. I think you will all understand … I am MOST relieved that the driver was not a white person because whether anitfa or not, the tragedy would have played 24/7 for days/weeks as proof of far right violence, etc. Would have been awful and downright criminal the way the leftist press would have fanned the flames

    A true tragedy as I don’t think he meant to do such a thing … I assume.

    But why are these people blocking streets, much less highways, in the middle of the night? What are they hoping to accomplish by doing this?

    I think of the many times one sacrasticly makes jokes about playing the streets and common sense….what is wrong with these people?!


    Liked by 5 people

      1. Many is the time I have wandered through the forest, and stumbled upon idyllic scenes like this, a beautiful woman singing and playing a guitar for a man who looks like Tony Curtis, dressed completely in white, shaving with a straight-razor while he smokes a white pipe.

        Can hardly take a walk in the woods anymore without tripping over these people…


        Liked by 12 people

        1. Patton won seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Original Screenplay. Scott won Best Actor for his portrayal of General Patton, but declined to accept the award. The opening monologue, delivered by George C. Scott as General Patton with an enormous American flag behind him, remains an iconic and often quoted image in film. The film was hugely successful, and in 2003, Patton was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant”.

          Liked by 6 people

              1. Really. 1894 enrolled at the Spirtual Seminary in Tbilisi (which even Russians couldn’t pronounce, so it was called Tiflis). Did well academically, and that was actually his SECOND religious school. (He went to the Gori church school starting in 1888, but I gather that’s a primary/secondary school.)

                Liked by 5 people

              2. Yes.

                That’s where he did his main recruiting as a teenager.

                He was very crafty, from the time he could talk. His mother and grandmother thought he had a demon in him. His mother tried to beat it out of him when he was a child, but it did not work.

                **Father was absent.** Very important.

                Because of his cunning and natural brilliance, he was seen to be capable of being a student at seminary. As he progressed, having pretended to be pious in his early years, he was given charge of younger seminarians during the summer. It was at those times he preyed upon his young charges. They were away from the seminary, so Stalin could inculcate these boys to hate the priests, the Church and God.

                I wrote about this, summarising an excellent book by a British historian, Simon Sebag Montefiore, who got access to the first released papers about Stalin that had been locked away for decades.

                The book is called Young Stalin. I highly recommend it. It’s a real page-turner with a ton of footnotes.

                This is my post with a brief extract from a summer encounter of his with a boy named Giorgi:


                This is my summary. The post has more.

                ‘His faith died during his first year at seminary and he spent quite a lot of time convincing other students to become atheists (p. 63). A priest, Father Elisabedashvili, heard that Stalin was an outstanding student. He invited him to his family home once for school holidays. The priest’s son Giorgi was going to sit the seminary’s entrance exam and Stalin appeared to be a good tutor. Stalin came armed with books the seminary had banned. He and Giorgi spent days reading and talking in the countryside. One day, Stalin took the boy to an old church nearby. He told Giorgi to remove an icon from the wall, smash it and then urinate on it. When he did so, Stalin congratulated his pupil on not showing a fear of God. When the boy’s exam score was too low for the seminary, the priest — rightly — blamed Stalin (pp. 66-67). Giorgi did get into Tiflis Seminary when he resat his exam. He was expelled in 1901 (p. 79) and became part of Stalin’s gang of ex-seminarians (see below).’

                You can read my other summaries from Young Stalin at this link, if you are interested:


                Liked by 1 person

    1. Good stuff! Yes, I can imagine many fashionably left Christian sheep scare easily by the “white supremacist” boogeyman. ChiComs laugh all the way to the Hillary White House with that one.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. This is the CT article – it’s action not a terrible read, but it is a real chameleon given it’s muddled treatment.

        This is a late joiner – John Piper has a steller reputation in Big Evangelicalism, but he’s long been compromised…

        Note he talks about being in “exile”. There’s a lot more behind it, but for our purposes that’s a code-word for Evangelical political disengagement. The intent is for the Evangelical citizen to not exercise their voting rights for the best interests of the Republic, or to set them up to not vote for an “immoral” President. Exile language is largely about divorcing American Christians from their support for American nationalism – but it’s highly disguised. I was very deep in this line of thinking back in 2014 through 2017 – which made more sense during the Obama administration when it really did seem like the light of liberty was going out. Right now “exile” language is used to keep Evangelicals from engaging politically.

        Liked by 5 people

  5. Liked by 18 people

  6. President giving a powerful speech tonight in DC. Several comments he has made might be indicators of some moves to come.

    He spoke of the MSM “slandering” the people, the country, and those that came before us and did great deeds for America and the world.

    Liked by 17 people

  7. It’s the Fourth of July, and the Couch Commando comes down the stairs in a black t-shirt that says, “As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.”

    Sorry, Little Brother, but that’s a completely different holiday.

    Liked by 9 people

  8. I turned on CPAN, and Pres. Trump was speaking outdoors. Now there is a flyover of aircraft through the years. Is anyone watching? Pres. Trump is speaking tonight, right?

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Close relative was on the river watching DC fireworks, she facetimed us and it was even more to watch on her facetime than on live streaming youtube or facebook from pbs or whitehouse.gov since it was personal. amazing to see it from water even if I was only virtually there.

      We listened to President Trump and saw flyovers via internet and then fireworks “with” relative

      happy indepdence day all!

      Refreshed and coming out of this weekend … CHARGING! Our Independence Day but up to each generation to fight to keep it!

      Liked by 7 people

  9. So what do you make of these……

    Liked by 5 people

    1. That’s really brazen of them, marching down the highway brandishing firearms like that.

      I don’t see how that’s legal.
      I mean…that’s an armed takeover of a public highway!

      Liked by 3 people

    1. Absolutely it does!

      They all finished with “WWG1WGA”…!

      Wow…very cool!

      I hope this means we’re going to be seeing some serious whoopass being administered.

      Liked by 8 people

          1. If Q is right about US getting kicked off the web – and I’m guessing it would be at the point where Q’s validity is revealed – then maybe Sundance will let us back on his place! 😉

            Liked by 3 people

      1. It’s about time…and I just got done watching The Patriot, so I’m fired up!!!

        Damn I wish I had gone to the range today. Oh, well, tomorrow works and I don’t have to mind this asylum then 😀

        Liked by 2 people

          1. Yes – the tweet is located AT the bare URL. Everything after the ? is junk about where the link came from, etc. It’s not like URLs where key information is passed as a parameter.



            Only *https://twitter.com/itsSpencerBrown/status/1278295266878197760 is truly relevant.

            Liked by 2 people

      1. This page shows the filing deadlines for the states. At a quick glance, it looks as if the deadline has passed for a lot of states for someone running as a Dem or Repub, but if running as an independent, the deadlines are later. Some are in August and September.

        I thought Kanye supported Pres. Trump. Why would he do this? Not that I’m concerned about it; it just seems like a useless exercise.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. I don’t understand it either, TheseTruths.

          Because as you said, he has been supportive of Pres Trump.

          Thanks for looking that up!
          I guess he still has time to get on the ballots.
          😒 Arrgh.

          Liked by 2 people

  10. [begin quote]

    Even if there weren’t a single atheist on Earth, and even if everyone on earth were Christian, it’d be a good thing to be able to prove inalienable rights exist, without referencing God.

    Why? Because so much of Leftism is based on the perspective that since rights don’t come from God, they don’t actually exist.
    [end quote]


    Your whole argument centering on these two points is quite profound.

    Thank you..

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s