There has been an update to the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous page whereby a recently enunciated term was defined. 

Poll: Majority believe US Government and media tried to cover up Wuhan lab leak theory

This is good news to see because it shows that the attempts of the combined mainstream media, social media, and the government (aka the government media complex) to attempt to suppress this hypothesis have failed and failed badly. To wit:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters think it’s likely that U.S. government officials actively tried to cover-up the possibility that the coronavirus was created in a Wuhan, China, Laboratory. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that 26% consider it unlikely and 17% are not sure.

That total includes 35% who say it’s Very Likely and 11% who think it’s Not at All Likely.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans consider a cover-up to be at least somewhat likely. Independent voters, by a 52% to 22% margin, tend to agree. Democrats are more evenly divided: 45% believe U.S. government officials actively engaged in a cover-up while 39% disagree.

I am not about to go into this again as I recently did in so HERE. Suffice to say, I was heartened by this thread today because sometimes you wonder just how much the attempts of the government media complex to try and cover this up and shame anyone who dared to not accept the officially sanctioned story were succeeding. The evidence of the latter would seem to be on the side of "not very well."

Remember Donald Trump-touted hydroxychloroquine? Study in India backs it as Covid-19 cure

I wanted to get hydroxychloroquine for my father in law Frank Barone as a last ditch effort to try and save him and was unable to. Why? Because those who cared more about playing politics got in the way. 

It bears endless repetition but something is not true or false based on who said it but instead on objective criteria. What that means is that even a complete jabronie can be right at times and persons who have real integrity will recognize this. But those playing politics do not. And among them were those who were much less concerned about truth on this vital matter than in "beating Trump." They had a hand in Frank Barone's death and I will neither forget nor forgive this.

They can all go to hell!

Time Magazine Gushingly Profiles The Successful ‘Conspiracy’ To Rig The 2020 Election

To reiterate what I said earlier in the week:

This is by far and away and without a shadow of doubt the most important media election article of the year. It exposes what a number of us have to varying degrees suspected and furthermore makes it clear why no one should take seriously anyone or anything that is pushed by the mainstream media, social tech giants, etc. 

...  

[A] healthy skepticism of anything and everything these outlets have been pushing is no longer just advisable but is now mandatory. Another requirement is presuming defacto that any story pushed by these outlets is false until proven to the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the bottom line.

Is It All Unraveling After the TIME Magazine Secret Cabal Piece?

More on the most important news article of the year by far.

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

This is by far and away and without a shadow of doubt the most important media election article of the year. It exposes what a number of us have to varying degrees suspected and furthermore makes it clear why no one should take seriously anyone or anything that is pushed by the mainstream media, social tech giants, etc. 

It is not a license to believe any crackpot conspiracy kook shit out there of course. However, a healthy skepticism of anything and everything these outlets have been pushing is no longer just advisable but is now mandatory. Another requirement is presuming defacto that any story pushed by these outlets is false until proven to the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the bottom line.

Lincoln Project Predator: What Did They Know, And When Did They Know It?

Basically, the pompous grifters at the Lin-Con project posed as More Moral Than Thou during the past four years. It was just a pose because they endlessly tut tutted about the specks in President Donald Trump's eye while the beam in their own eye (harbouring a sexual predator) went conspicuously ignored.

Chief Justice John Roberts won’t preside over the Senate impeachment trial

With the absence of the only government official constitutionally required to preside over impeachment trials involving a president, this time wasting farce is delegitimized at the outset.

Briefly...

For those looking forward with baited breath for 1/20/21 at noon, remember this paraphrase of those great western philosophers The Who:

"Meet the new Establishment. Same as the old Establishment..."

Miscellaneous Musings:

(On Political Kayfabe) 

We are almost to that changing season where the days get longer, a new Congress is sworn in, and Republicans start once again tut tutting about being guardians against all ye deficits with a Democrat in the White House. Of course they gave as much of a shit about it in 2017-2019 as they did during 2001-2007 when Bush 43 was president which was none. 

Meanwhile, the Democrats who nitpicked a few billion dollars for the silly wall and pretended to care about things like PayGo and all that under Trump will suddenly want to spend trillions with no shame whatsoever under Biden much as they did under Obama but whined incessantly about when it happened under Bush.

In wrestling parlance, this is called a double turn and it happens when the parties out of executive power change just like clockwork. And that many of those who would claim that wrestling is "fake" actually think any of this government posturing is real? It is as predetermined as any wrestling event and frankly far less real.

A Plan To Pay Off The National Debt...
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is the text of a mostly finished Facebook note from November 4, 2017 which was completed recently for publication.

As of this writing, we are approximately $20 $26 trillion dollars in debt if we talk about the national debt alone.{1} To listen to many folks, the idea of paying this sum off is a pipe dream at best. I will concede that there is a serious lack of political will in both major political parties{2}; however, that does not mean that plans cannot be offered. I will now offer what I hope is a simple plan that everyone can get behind.

To start with, we need to abolish baseline budgeting. I am not going to go into this in detail right now but suffice to say, by statute all budgetary items are automatically increased and right now that is approximately 7% a year on every budgetary item. We then see stupid political fights if say Republicans propose to reduce that 7% on some programs to say 4% and Democrats disingenuously claim Republicans are “cutting spending” or some other stupid claim. Reducing automatic increases is never an actual cut in spending and only morons think it is. However, there are no shortage of morons who do not mind making these sorts of claims to try and score cheap political points by appealing to the rubes amongst the populace who have no idea how any of this works. But to return to the point at hand here: as long as the baseline budgeting model is used, a bias exists in the budgetary calculation method that favours increased spending.{3} And when spending increases are the default mechanism to any budgetary projections, that makes balancing budgets very tough not to mention actually paying down debt
.

So first step in the process is eliminating baseline budgeting and replacing it with zero based budgeting starting from whatever the budget was ten years ago. I picked the figure of ten years ago because the budget was already bloated like a hippo ten years ago at $2.98 trillion. Surely no one would claim the country cannot survive on a mere $2.98 trillion per year, right? So with that in mind, every budgetary item is rolled back to its spending level in 2008 and any items not in the budget at that time are subjected to the rules involved with zero based budgeting.

Zero based budgeting in a nutshell requires that all spending must be automatically 

justified anew each year or it will be eliminated from the budget. Zero based budgeting is not concerned with maintaining previous spending levels and places the default mechanism on budgetary reductions. So the first step in this plan is zero based budgeting so that we nip automatic budget increases in the rump from the get go.{4} The next part concerns actually balancing budgets.

I am going to part ways with many conservatives out there and say forget about a balanced budget amendment. Why? Because it is a true pipe dream. We will never get two thirds of both houses in congress to approve it so why expend energy on it? What we can do however is impose sequestration. And I propose we do this on every single item in the budget. Every budget item no matter what it is gets automatically cut every year. I propose a 5% sequestration on every budget item every year. This would remove the politics from various sides whining about any special favour being shown to one persons sacred cows over another because in this plan, everyone’s sacred cows get a 5% trim automatically.

Now as we start the process of operating with more of a balanced budget mindset, we can turn our attention to the debt itself. For it does not solve the issue of the debt to just run a string of balanced budgets if the overarching debt is not actually paid off. So here is the plan for that: establish a sinking fund. Alexander Hamilton put one in place in 1790 aimed at retiring 5% of the debt every year until it was paid off. And while it took a while to do, the debt was paid off in full by 1835.{5} So using a similar methodology, a sinking fund is established aimed at paying down 5% of debt a year. The money is apart from the budget and used only for paying down debt principal. How does it work?

The sinking fund uses the basic concept of compound interest to eradicate debt quickly. The origins of the idea date back to 14th century Italy, but I will start with 18th century Great Britain and the United States. William Pitt{6} employed the fund in the 1780s as British debt accrued at a rapid rate due to the war, and the US chose a similar path in the 1790s. A set amount of money was put aside every year to redeem outstanding government debt. The money was used to purchase public securities as an investment. Each year the interest gained on public securities was added to the fund. With the simple use of compound interest, the fund could grow significantly.{7}

As far as how the sinking fund would be funded, recourse can be had to what Alexander Hamilton said in The Federalist insofar as the advantages of consumption taxes:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. 

Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference. In every country it is a herculean task to obtain a valuation of the land; in a country imperfectly settled and progressive in improvement, the difficulties are increased almost to impracticability. The expense of an accurate valuation is, in all situations, a formidable objection. In a branch of taxation where no limits to the discretion of the government are to be found in the nature of things, the establishment of a fixed rule, not incompatible with the end, may be attended with fewer inconveniences than to leave that discretion altogether at large.{8}

Now one reason why Hamilton’s original sinking fund while successful was at the same time erratic is it was not set aside solely for retiring the public debt. I am proposing therefore a greater restriction on this use of a sinking fund; namely, that it would only be used for retiring public debt. As for funding, I think it could be largely handled the same ways Hamilton funded his: through western land sales and consumption taxes on luxury items. The federal government owns a majority of the land among the western states but they also own land in other states. Perhaps a law that specifies a maximum of say 10% of a state's land in states admitted to the union prior to February 15, 1912{9} and a maximum of 30% of a states land in states admitted subsequent to that time can be held by the federal government with a ten year flex period to sell said land. There could also be specific types of taxes{10} formulated specifically for this purpose and it could be applied specifically and only for retiring public debt.

While far from complete, this is a broad based outline for being able to start the process of getting a handle first on deficits and then on the national debt which is in excess of $20 trillion now. Any solution needs to be bipartisan as well as handle budgetary items across the board so no favourites are played for anyone. And what needs to be recognized is that both budgets need to be cut as well as taxes raised and that the government cannot be trusted without constraints to do the right thing.
We can have contested arguments on a number of issues but the national debt as former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels liked to say is the new Red Menace and therefore we should agree to fix this bipartisan problem with a bipartisan solution.


Notes:

{1} I have no intention of touching on unfunded liabilities in this note as that is a subject best handled separately.

{2} It may exist in smaller political parties to a certain extent but as they are too insignificant to make a real difference, nothing more needs to be said about them on these matters.

{3} Because the operative presupposition with baseline budgeting is that federal spending keeps pace with inflation.

{4} Considering that the total budget in 2008 was $2.98 trillion and the total revenue from 2018 is projected to be $3.65 trillion, we already start with a $670 billion surplus of funds for immediate debt reduction sans any increased amount needed to service interest on the debt that has increased by roughly ten trillion since that time.

{5} The budget already has funds for servicing the interest on the debt so it need not be dealt with here.

{6} The prime minister of Great Britain.

{7} Which considering the extent of our national debt would be of assistance in tackling it.

{8} Publius: Excerpt from The Federalist #21 (circa December 12, 1787)

{9} This would make the 10% threshold only apply to the lower 48 states.

{10} This would involve consumption taxes on luxury items.

More willful blindness by the media on spying by Obama administration

In a nutshell: this is a lot worse than Watergate. But the mainstream media does not care because it does not fit any of their preselected narratives.

Points to Ponder:

Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness. [James Wilson]

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font.

I think doing away with qualified immunity makes cops prey to ambulance chasing lawyers. They don’t need to have evidence to begin a lawsuit and bankrupt cops who don’t make a whole lot of money to begin with. If there is clear evidence of misconduct, that’s another thing.

Besides, is this something Congress ought to be focusing a lot of energy on? Where’s the evidence of systemic police brutality and abuse?

On qualified immunity...

Qualified immunity hinders the protection of civil rights in a number of ways: 

1. First and foremost, qualified immunity means that victims of brutality or harassment by law enforcement generally get no relief in court and have no ability to hold offending officers accountable for their actions. That means the officers who commit the brutality and harassment—and the governments that employ them—have little incentive to improve their practices and follow the law. This undermines safety and justice for everyone, and particularly for people of color or vulnerable people who are most likely to be the target of police misconduct. 

2. Qualified immunity doesn’t just reduce a person’s chance for victory in a civil rights lawsuit; it means many claims will never be brought to court in the first place. As part of a civil rights law passed in 1976, Congress tried to create an incentive for lawyers to represent victims in civil rights actions and ensure that constitutional rights are safeguarded. To do so, Congress guaranteed that lawyers who represent victims in successful civil rights actions would be able to recover the cost of their time. A huge number of lawyers who bring civil rights actions rely on this law or on the possibility of contingency fees in the event they succeed. 

But when a case is dismissed based on qualified immunity, the victim loses and attorneys are not able to recover the fees for their work. Thus, as a result of the Supreme Court’s aggressive defense of qualified immunity, victims of civil rights violations may be less likely to find a lawyer who is willing to represent them and suits will not be brought in the first place. 

3. Qualified immunity freezes constitutional law. As mentioned previously, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a victim must show that law enforcement violated “clearly established” law by pointing to a case arising in the same context and involving the same conduct. This has given courts a shortcut to resolving cases: Instead of reviewing, analyzing, and applying constitutional doctrine to determine whether a person’s rights were violated, a court can instead simply say that there has been no sufficiently similar case in the past. The result is that fewer courts ever resolve constitutional issues, and constitutional rights are hardly ever “clearly established.”
This shortcut has led to some outrageous results. In an opinion filed in March 2019, for instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that officers were immune from liability for the deliberate stealing of property simply because there was no “clearly established” case law governing the circumstances. In that case, police officers who had executed a search warrant seized about $275,000 in property: approximately $150,000 in cash, and another $125,000 in rare coins, but stated that they had seized only $50,000. In other words, the officers attempted to steal $225,000 while on the job. 

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit against the officers, granting qualified immunity because it had “never before addressed” whether officers executing a warrant could steal property. And, according to the court, it was not sufficiently “obvious” to police officers that stealing property under the guise of executing a search warrant violated an individual’s constitutional rights. As a result, the Ninth Circuit said that it “need not” even address whether the officers’ stealing was illegal. 

This example should show the degree to which qualified immunity opens the door for wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement. No reasonable officer needs a case to tell them that stealing property is wrong. But it’s worse than that. Because the court did not say that the conduct was illegal, the law is still not clearly established that officers may not deliberately steal property when exercising a search. So an officer could, again, claim immunity for the same behavior. 

As Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett described this phenomenon: Victims of abuse “must produce precedent even as fewer courts are producing precedent. Important constitutional questions go unanswered precisely because those questions are yet unanswered. Courts then rely on that judicial silence to conclude there’s no equivalent case on the books. No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability.” In other words, Judge Willett said, “Heads defendants win, tails plaintiffs lose.” [LINK]

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font

Shawn, oh, and by the way, I think cops who commit crimes should be themselves

Then what was your objection to the original status?

Shawn, I didn’t make an objection to your original status per se, although I don’t know if I would be 100% onboard with 3every point. Nor do I believe this should be federal issue. States and cities should make those calls.]

You do realize that these are all areas that were aggravated by federal legislation and federal courts right? It makes it very tough to have states and cities make the calls when the feds overrule it anyway. But that is neither here nor there.

Of the seven points listed, which ones do you have a problem with and why?

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font.

Apples and oranges? “unelected tin badge wearing authoritah jackoff”

Boy, your cop hatred is as obsessive as I suspected.

When you do not blow cops and place them on an untouchable pedestal, you have a more realist and less fairytale view.

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE and HERE. My words will be in regular font.

Shawn, wait a second. You gonna tell me that the assassination of a president, governor, or mayor is not going to be more vigorously prosecuted than a drive-by shooting?

Apples and oranges. There is a qualitative difference between a democratically elected chief executive and some unelected tin badge wearing authoritah jackoff.

Same principle applies, albeit to a lesser extent, to law enforcement for the simple reason that these occupations represent security beyond just themselves.

Geez, the photo from earlier was more on point with you than I thought.

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installment in this series can be read HERE. My words will be in regular font.

Shawn, I have made no excuses whatsoever for police misconduct. And no, it is not an Animal Farm view of things to believe that violent crimes against law enforcement should be prosecuted with even more vigor. It’s not because they are better than anyone else, but for the reason I state above, that is killing cops makes a community more vulnerable. In other words, to BETTER PROTECT A COMMUNITY!!! Woke Shawn refuses to understand the simple logic of deterrence there.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, you know I’m one of the most pro-death penalty folks around for the capital murder of civilians,

Equality under the law should not be a mindless slogan. But just as leftists love to namedrop Dr. King while not bothering to listen to what he said, folks like yourself pay lip service to the notion of being "a nation of laws" and "equality under the law" to create special exemption preserves for some groups of people. In short, "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." In a nutshell: Animal Farm.

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This was a response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

My words will be in regular font.

This should be a two way street. 1) If you mouth off to a cop (tell him to fuck off, call him a pig etc.)in the performance of his duties (traffic stops etc.) you should at least spend the night in jail. When I was growing up, a cop whipped your ass if you mouthed off and no one said shit about it. This was especially true with cops in the suburbs.

2) If you try to physically attack a cop on duty, it should be a felony if it isn’t already. If you happen to get a concussion in the process, tough shit!

3) Murder of a police officer should be an automatic federal death penalty-eligible offense. Since we are treating the Tenth Amendment as dead letter, might as well do it in favor of the good guys once in a while.

There is a difference between wanting effective law enforcement that respects the constitutional and civil rights of those they are supposed to serve and blowing the cops while making excuses for inexcusable violations of constitutional and civil rights with an Animal Farm view of things. Maybe someday you will realize this.

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform:

1) Abolish civil asset forfeiture

2) Make falsifying a police report a felony

3) End qualified immunity

4) End no knock warrants

5) End warrantless searches

6) Make intentionally turning off a police body camera to conceal evidence a felony

7) Require at least a year's training for police officers before they are allowed to go armed into a community.