But Can You Prove It?

 

Democrats are saying that the revelations of 2016 collusion in the Intelligence Community to tarnish Trump are all just a smokescreen to deflect from the Epstein debacle. That's a credible enough accusation that I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. BUT...I could just as easily counter that their invoking Epstein now is just an attempt on THEIR part to deflect from the 2016 monkey business. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I'm angry about both and want to see justice served on both fronts. Would that be so hard? Do I really need to choose just one or the other?

My impression so far is that this probably was a treasonous plot to unseat the president based on creating a false narrative.  Of course, I've believed that since 2016. The technique they relied upon is probably exactly the same technique they use when they want to destabilize a foreign government like Romania or Ukraine or one of the other former Soviet republics.  This time, the powers that be turned the procedure on elements in our own country. That's a terrible precedent to leave unexposed and unpunished.

But so far, I don't see anything that can be proved in court.  Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) are stonewalling everything and relying on a strategy of deny, deny, deny, hoping it will all be too complicated a story to change anyone's mind.  They're probably right.  Even if the media and the perpetrators were to admit that the false narrative was way off base, they'll just throw Brennan, Comey, Clapper et al under the bus and claim it was all just incompetence and deny any intentional actions.  Unless Trump et al have credible whistleblowers who can testify to direct knowledge of conspiratorial intent, (and I hope they DO) my guess is this will never see the inside of a courtroom. I hope I'm wrong, but while the optimist in me is often disappointed, the cynic in me rarely is.

Grok Can't Tell a Joke...Yet

 

I'm on a dating app, and part of my written profile includes the line,


"Ethnically Jewish, atheist, and libertarian. Sounds like the start of a joke right? An atheist, a libertarian, and a Jew walk into a bar…"

This morning I got a like from a woman in Philadelphia with a brief comment,


"Walk into a bar and the atheist says"

 

A bit of an incomplete thought. I wrote back:

"Hi Marilyn: Your message looks incomplete. I was thinking to myself, "Does she actually KNOW of a joke that starts this way?" Because I don't. Then it occurred to me that maybe we could compose one together, and you just provided the opening line. But, no. That seems like I'm left to do most of the heavy lifting, and I couldn't come up with anything. Then I had a great idea. I've been meaning to try an AI engine to see how they work, so I posed the question to Grok on X. This was the very lengthy reply I got."

www.x.com/i/grok?conversation=1939693905647141273

[Check out the reasoning pathways. Fascinating!] 

"Credit to Grok for trying so hard, but it utterly failed to make up a joke. BUT...the answer DID give me an idea for finishing the joke myself.

An atheist, a libertarian and a Jew walk into a bar. The atheist orders a B and B (Benedictine and Brandy) without the Benedictine. The libertarian orders a Cuba Libre. The Jew orders an OJ. The bartender comes back with the OJ, but no drinks for the atheist or the libertarian. They complain to the bartender, "Hey, what about our drinks?" The bartender says, "We don't serve your kind in here. This is a Jew's bar!"

A real groaner, I know, but it's nice to reflect on the fact that I'm still funnier than a Large Language Model. At least for now.

Washington and Jefferson are American Heroes, but Machiavelli Taught Us How the World Really Works

I subscribe to a Substack run by a green chicken named Doomberg.  It's the most informative and thought provoking paid subscription I have.  This morning, one article in particular opened my eyes to a couple of possibilities.  Here's a link to the article, but it's probably paywalled.  The article is about Iran's relationship with China.  China apparently gets much of its oil from Iran.  I wonder if in fact our belligerence towards Iran might not really be a much longer term strategy to weaken China, our real long term geopolitical adversary. The article focuses a great amount of detail on this hypothesis, and it's worth reading for that reason.  But I'm referencing it because it got me thinking about some seemingly unrelated topics that had been lingering in the back of my mind for quite a while.   For one thing, the article suggests to me that Trump's animosity towards Iran might not be entirely at Israel's bidding as many have suggested.  

Also, the complexity of our international relationships is a reminder of how confusing and mercenary real geopolitics can be.  To oversimplify it egregiously, it's more like the game of Risk than anything else.  The natural assumption is that everybody in the world is your potential enemy.  The only way not to be eaten is to eat them first or make temporary alliances of convenience with your enemy's enemies.

Maybe this is why the peace treaty in Ukraine wasn't accomplished in 24 hours.  Both warring parties must be exhausted and looking for a solution.  Ukraine has no cards to play with Russia, but Trump, if he's willing, can continue to bleed both mercilessly to get something from each in exchange for an end to the war.  This minerals deal with Ukraine may be one example of that.  He certainly never said anything about it during the campaign.  It was only afterwards that the seemingly mercenary condition of a minerals contract was introduced in exchange for his assistance with a peace agreement.  And who knows what we can extract from Russia.  They're not losing in Ukraine, but they're not exactly winning either.  At some point, Putin would rather end the war.  What's he willing to pay for Trump's help in doing that?   Maybe some concession in an entirely unrelated geopolitical arena. Abandoning his support of Iran for instance or a reversal of Russia's recent rapprochement with China.  Saudi Arabia recently announced an increase in crude production, dropping oil prices significantly.  That's not in the Saudi's direct interest to do such a thing.  Did Trump engineer that move from the Saudis in exchange for something about which we remain ignorant in order to threaten Russia's position in oil markets?  

On a slightly different topic, but not entirely unrelated in terms of how the world really works, let's consider DOGE.  I'm seeing complaints from some that despite DOGE making drastic cuts in wasteful programs, Congress is making no effort to cut future funding for the agencies responsible.  My cynical speculation?  Trump wants to keep the funding so he can use it for so called "soft power" programs promoting HIS agenda instead of those soft power programs that previously promoted "woke" and anti American agendas which had been their purpose under Democratic administrations.  Likewise the Epstein information.  We'll never see it.  The blackmail potential of that information will now simply be put to the use of the new power brokers in DC.  Instead of a Democratic controlled FBI and DOJ, we now have a MAGA controlled bureaucracy.  Does anybody really think Donald Trump would willingly forfeit that kind of leverage voluntarily? 

More and more, I think one must seek to understand the world in terms of Machiavelli and not in terms of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  Boy Scouts don't set the world's agenda.  Men like Mao and Stalin do.  And Putin, Xi and Trump.  Maybe Bibi too.  I wish it weren't so, but since it apparently IS so, I guess I'm glad we have someone like Trump on our side...I think. After all, one should NEVER fall in love with any politician.  They will ultimately break your heart.  Machiavelli understood that too!

Tragedy in Gaza: Hamas Shoots Themselves in the Foot

I've been following the hostage release drama in Israel pretty closely lately. I have a friend who lived in Israel for many years who has been deeply and emotionally engaged in this sad drama. If not for her, it might have largely escaped my attention. That would have been unfortunate. A big focus of my concentration yesterday (Friday, February 21, 2025) was on the Bibas family. You may not recognize the name, but I can assure you, every soul in Israel knows them. The father, Yarden Bibas, who along with his family, was taken hostage on October 7, 2023, survived the ordeal. He was released three weeks ago. Then yesterday, along with one live hostage, Hamas released the bodies of the two Bibas children and their mother Shiri Bibas.  Or did they? As it turned out, it wasn't Shiri's body in the third black box. It was some unidentified Gazan woman. After much uproar, Hamas, claiming an honest error, has now released the remains of Shiri Bibas. The MSM here in the US covered the initial release...a bit. But Twitter was on fire about it due to the callous and celebratory atmosphere created/exhibited/stage managed by Hamas during the turnover. I have no choice but to turn to curated sources on Twitter for news on this subject so important to the people of Israel. I don't think the western media can be trusted to do justice to this story. 

My friend and I have had much different outlooks on the hostage situation. She's been much more emotionally engaged in it than I have been. The Israeli people equally so, as far as I can tell. That's OK. I get it. As for myself, from the very beginning, I considered every hostage, whether still alive or not, to be as good as dead already. That's been my point of view since October 7. I may have missed an important consideration. To be certain, my point of view is the better tactical assessment. Disregarding the hostages would have cleared the way for more decisive kinetic action. Consider this scene from the film Speed. But strategic and political considerations suggest the current Israeli plan of action regarding the hostages will yield the better overall outcome in the end.  Progress on the battlefield is important, but Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu must be concerned with progress on the propaganda front as well, and this week, Israel won the propaganda battle, and it may turn out to be the most decisive battle of the war. 

My more narrow, less well informed argument perhaps, goes like this. How many soldiers should die or how many terrorists should be released in order to save a hostage. It reminds me of the moral dilemma portrayed in Saving Private Ryan.  How many soldiers in that squad died to save that one guy? Were their lives any less valuable than Ryan's?  Yes, Ryan's mother had suffered much grief, and it was a noble concern to try and spare her further suffering. But what about the collective grief of all the other families whose loved ones died to save Ryan? I know Bibi has political issues which must be considered, but in the end, negotiating for hostages validates Hamas' belief that hostage taking works. If I was a hostage or a family member, I'd be grateful for the government's desire to save me or my loved one, but tactically speaking, it has been an impediment to victory over Hamas. 

But tactical considerations are not always the most important concerns in warfare. Certainly Netanyahu understood this better than I did. Yes, Hamas' behavior was atrocious. Cruel and disrespectful. The parade, the cheering, and ultimately, returning the wrong body mis-identified as the children's mother Shiri. Hamas claims it was in error. Bullshit! Disgusting! But in the end, it was a gift to Israel! Twitter account @HamasAtrocities summed it up best. 

Keep on doing these macabre shows when releasing the hostages! Ironically, despite the masks, you are showing the world your true faces. Cowardly, inhumane, cruel and hopeless!

That day we didn't just witness yet one more act of cruelty. We witnessed a battle in the propaganda war. A decisive battle. Maybe even a turning point in the war. A battle in which Hamas shot themselves in the foot. One day in the future, God willing, we may be able to look back and say, this was the day that Hamas sealed their own fate and ensured their ultimate destruction. And if this comes to pass, and Hamas is no more, they will have been defeated by a four year old toddler named Ariel, his nine month old infant brother, Kfir, and their mother Shiri. 

Hamas may have gotten some propaganda value with their supporters who approved of this barbarism, but Israel got value as well out of Hamas' displaying to the world just how disgusting their ideology is. In the end, I think the balance falls in favor of Israel. But to be honest, I've thought that since October 7, 2023. Nothing Israel has done since that day has impacted my views as much as the bloodlust and barbarity Hamas displayed when it began this latest conflict. I don't care how effective Hamas' propaganda machine may be on others. In my view, there will be no justice in the world until Hamas has been destroyed, and if Hamas has decided to martyr all of Gaza in the process, then that is on them, not on Israel. 

If there were any people on the fence about this conflict before this latest hostage display, I feel certain that more of them have shifted to support for Israel than have  shifted to support for Hamas. More importantly, If there were any Israelis still advocating for restraint in Gaza, and there were many, their numbers have certainly dwindled to near zero after what Hamas has done this week. Every adversary in a struggle such as this uses propaganda. Israel is no different. It is a critical tool for any entity engaged in a conflict, be that entity a state actor or an insurgency.  Israel has all the advantages in every other aspect of warfare, but in the propaganda realm, Israel and Hamas have been peer rivals. I would be reluctant to believe on face value anything said by either side. But I'd go so far as to say that up until now, in the propaganda realm, Hamas has had the upper hand; the greater capability.  But they made a huge mistake this time.  They totally fucked up with this display of arrogance and bloodlust. Israel got the better outcome in this battle.  I hope and believe it will be sufficient to decisively turn sentiment worldwide in favor of Israel where I think it should have been all along based solely on the horror of October 7. 

The propaganda war has become the most important aspect of the battle in Gaza right now. In the kinetic war, the Israelis have always had the clear advantage. With Trump in the White House, only more so. And now, largely thanks again to Trump, they have the diplomatic advantage as well.  Arab leaders met in Saudi Arabia Friday to discuss their own peace plan for Gaza. That only happened because Trump proposed that HE would take Gaza for himself.  If not for that, the Arabs would have been happy just to sit on their hands and let the whole situation fester. Only out of fear that Trump would unleash Bibi, and then come in afterwards to take the "spoils of war" did they feel compelled to act.

The story hasn't reached a conclusion yet, but I can't help but feel the tide has turned. As awful as the Bibas tragedy has been, I hope it will prove to have been decisive in a just outcome for Israel.  Time will tell.

I Was Wrong: Climate Change is Real!

I have a morning regimen. A pretty strict morning regimen actually. Like, OCD strict, truth be told. My wakeup time can vary. I'm retired, so an alarm clock is rarely a part of the routine anymore. I push the dog off of my covers and onto "her side" of the bed. (As if!) I  drag myself up, and set my feet on the floor. Short pause to confirm my balance. A trip to the bathroom, brush teeth, hop on the scale, shave, and floss. Always in that order. Don't ask. I dress, make the bed, open the bedroom blinds, and walk to the back of the apartment while reciting to the dog in very excited tones, "Let's go let some light in! Let's go let some light in!" Inevitably, the dog gets there before me, and then, without fail, stops to scratch an itch somewhere. Not just sometimes. EVERY TIME. Is OCD contagious, or are owner and animal just particularly well suited for one another in our case? I open the vertical blinds to illuminate the room while she impatiently pokes her nose between the slats to ensure that she is the first of us to get a look outside.  

Now it's time for our morning walk, but in the winter, I've got to check my phone first to see how many layers I need to put on to protect myself from the cold. The dog has never shown any concern for temperature. She doesn't do layers. I've yet to encounter any outdoor conditions that could dampen her enthusiasm to get through that door first thing in the morning.  

But something happened this morning. Something that, just for a moment, upset the routine. It wasn't anything earth shattering. Let's just say it was one of those "makes you say hmm" moments. Like the first time my bathroom scale read 180 after decades registering in the random 170's. The world didn't end, but then, as was the case this morning, it was obvious that the time had come for some reflection. 

The temperature this morning? Nine degrees! Nine degrees Fahrenheit! Single digit temperatures had arrived in Dover Delaware. I was shocked. The shock didn't last long. After all, the previous few mornings we'd been in the middle teens, so how extraordinary was nine degrees really? Extraordinary enough to grab my attention, I guess. We may have experienced single digit temperatures in Dover before, but I don't remember it. In fact, I can't remember EVER experiencing single digits, and I spent four years in South Dakota. Don't get me wrong. I almost certainly HAVE experienced temperatures that extreme in the past. I simply don't remember it. That's why it became such an "occasion" when I saw the readout on my phone this morning. "Hmm. I've got to give this some thought", it occurred to me.

Once on the walk, it struck me that nine degrees didn't really feel all that terrible. Certainly no worse than the mid teens the morning prior. That's what layers can do for you I guess. I also started to reflect on the paradox of a nine degree morning in a world obsessed with climate change. "Hah!" I mused, "No evidence of global warming this morning!" Of course, the alarmists don't call it global warming anymore, do they? And mornings like this one are the reason why. Global warming morphed into climate change expressly to enable them to create a frenzy over not just the normal warm weather events, but the normal cold weather events as well. Hurricanes, heat waves, droughts? Climate change. Icy mornings, record low temperatures, polar vortices? Also climate change. See how that works?

And of course, there is the whole weather vs climate business to consider. The left's insistence on equating the two is their most egregious slight of hand by far. I frequently reflect on the fact that the climate alarmists pretend to have no appreciation for the difference between the two. Weather is a totally different thing from climate. Weather is a series of day to day events, and can exhibit a tremendous amount of daily/weekly/monthly variability. Climate, on the other hand, is a much more "big picture" phenomenon. Climatic considerations are measured in centuries. If only the radical climate folks would acknowledge that. But then, it is not in their interest to be so meticulous in their analysis, is it? Every time there's a hurricane or a drought, or more recently, a wildfire, they spin up the climate change nonsense as if we never had those phenomena prior to the evolution of our carbon reliant world.  

Reflecting on all this was beginning to spoil my mood. I could have been just enjoying a brisk walk in the chilled air with my eager canine companion, but instead I was dwelling on the deceptions of the Climate Industrial Complex. Bummer! That's when I had an idea. More like an epiphany really. If the climate grifters can blame every ordinary weather related extreme on anthropomorphic climate change and lay the blame at the feet of CO2, our growing use of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect, why couldn't we turn the tables on them and blame all these same phenomena, or at least the cold weather ones, on their reckless and crazy efforts to lower CO2 emissions. Nine degrees is COLD. It's TOO cold. It would be better if it were warmer. Why isn't it warmer? It's obvious. We don't have enough CO2 in the atmosphere. And just like that, I became a believer in anthropomorphic climate change. These morons have depleted all of the valuable CO2 that we need to prosper on this hostile earth. Those grifters have ushered in a cold and barren world with their radical and reckless pursuit of Net Zero. We never had nine degree temperatures in Dover before those crazies started monkeying with our critical CO2 levels. Everything was just fine until we started to lose the benefits of the greenhouse effect thanks to their meddling. We don't need to reduce CO2. We need to INCREASE CO2. The fate of the world depends on it. CO2 isn't a threat to mankind. It's our salvation. Crazy talk, I know, but no crazier than the ridiculous arguments we've had to endure from those environmental Nazis over the past half century.

And just like that, I became a believer in anthropomorphic climate change. 

We need to start a new climate movement predicated on the desperate need to increase the world's CO2 concentrations and get those temperatures back up to where they belong. And we need to seek out and bring to justice those who are responsible for this hellish arctic nightmare of dropping temperatures. We need to decommission all of our solar generating capacity and offshore wind farms, and of course, all that rooftop solar will have to go. We need to replace it all with as many carbon spewing fossil fuel power generating stations as we can possibly build as fast as we can build them. We need to drill baby drill, and it goes without saying that we should flare as much natural gas as we possibly can in the process. The climate change grifters won't like any of this, but it's got to be done to "save the planet" from a rapidly approaching year round global winter. We need to act now or the entire planet will be a frozen wasteland by September 24, 2029.  And yes, I just pulled that date right out of my ass. That's how climate alarmism works, right? And speaking of global winter, nuclear has got to go. I used to be a big fan of nuclear back when carbon was the enemy, but the greens never liked it then, even when it sounded like the perfect solution for a carbon free world. Well, now maybe they'll be happy with a new nuclear free environment. That will be their consolation prize for embracing  their new pro-carbon future. No more "You will own nothing and you will be happy."  From now on, it will be "You'll have cheap abundant carbon based energy, longer summers, a comfortably heated home, and prosperity; and you will be happy."

Oil company CEO's will no longer be worldwide pariahs. Their vacated positions as outcasts will be filled by the leaders of Extinction Rebellion, Friends of the Earth, The Sierra Club and Greenpeace. And Greta Thunberg of course. 

And what is it with Greta Thunberg, anyhow? How in the world did that whiny little nincompoop ever become the face of global climate concerns? You'd expect that a movement with that much hubris and sense of self importance would have chosen someone with a little more in the way of scientific bona fides and gravitas. Kind of like choosing the Easter Bunny to be the face of Easter. As a friend recently pointed out to me, Easter is arguably the most significant holiday on the Christian calendar; more important than Christmas. For Christians, it represents the resurrection of the Son of God from death on the cross to new and everlasting life. It offers all of mankind the promise of a similar resurrection to eternal life in heaven in exchange for the simple act of believing. And as the forward facing symbol of that epic promise, Christianity chose the  Easter Bunny? The Easter Bunny! That adult sized incarnation of every kid's little fluffy friend who walks around department stores and pricey restaurant Easter brunches scaring the crap out of small children despite the offer of free candy. 

Greta Thunberg is the Easter Bunny of the Environmental Movement.  

And what do we really know about Greta anyhow? She's supposed to be some innocent teenager, but hasn't she been around for like 20 or 30 years already? She could be peri-menopausal by now for all we know. On hormone replacement and getting ready for her second artificial hip. And yet, they keep her onboard as a sort of mascot for the sake of branding, I guess. Hell, Elsie the Cow was created in 1936. That's 89 years ago, and Elsie's still going strong. I guess Greta's got a few more good years left in her. She's got a pretty sweet grift going on for herself there too. I'm sure she won't want to give it up until she absolutely has to. She's probably a bazillionaire by now. Does anybody even know where she lives these days? I wonder how many houses she owns. With that and all the traveling she does, she must have a carbon footprint bigger than a dozen Versailles.  

Greta Thunberg is the Elsie the Cow of the Environmental Movement.

With the tables turned on the radical environmentalists, maybe we could encourage our youth to become a brand new cadre of annoying, know-it-all protest harpies. They could annoy the old guard environmentalists by throwing paint or soup on their beloved works of art or by gluing their hands to the road to block traffic along their busiest highways. But then, who would really care? How does one further defile "artworks" like Piss Christ? And the roads outside of hippie communes are mostly dirt and gravel and not heavily traveled anyway. How would that work exactly?

What I'd really like to see would be for Greta and her ilk be called before the International Criminal Court in the Hague to answer for their decades long environmental con game. Oh the irony!  A herd of phony baloney environmental grifters called before the world's premier phony baloney court of "justice" to answer for their sins.  I'd pay money to witness that, and I'd bring my own popcorn.  

Alright.  Enough of this.  I started out simply noticing that it's a bit cold outside, and I ended up reflecting on Greta Thunberg, the Easter Bunny, and the total fantasy of modern day justice in the Hague.  Gotta go. My dog is pestering me to go back outside. It's up to 22 degrees. Practically toasty. Shorts weather. Hmm. You know all that stuff I wrote?

Never mind!

To Christine...Fondly

 

Dear Christine:

First of all, let me wish you a Happy New Year.

I went onto eHarmony last night to wish you the same, but I found that you’d ended the conversation just a few nights earlier. Not that anyone considers transparency or closure as prominent features of “the apps”, but to whatever degree our joint experience serves as a data point in your assessment of online dating, let me just offer this short explanation of it from my point of view. I’d have preferred this to be a brief text, but it seems I’ve lost the capacity to do brief anymore. I’ve posted the full message on my blog. 

I’m trying to decide how to start the next paragraph.

Option one: I think online dating is a wonderful innovation. Or

Option two: Online dating is a terrible way to meet a romantic partner, except for ALL the other available possibilities.

Actually, both can be true. I believe online dating IS a wonderful innovation, but only because the other options are all so lousy, especially for a shy person.

I used to think online dating was just for desperate people or superficial people. I don’t think that any more. Yes, there are some desperate people out there. And Christ, there are entire websites dedicated to the superficial ones just looking for hook-ups! But other than a few scammers, most of the women whose profiles I’ve examined are honest, sincere women who have just decided to take control of their circumstances and look for exactly what I’m looking for; a compatible companion so that they can overcome loneliness and enjoy a better quality of life. To the extent that we share that motivation, I love and admire every woman I’ve ever encountered on the dating apps, and I wish every one of them eventual success despite the obstacles, the frustrations, and the occasional (frequent?) disappointments.

As we age, some of us lose our filters. We say things our younger selves might never have said. That can be awkward and embarrassing at times. But for an introvert, it can also be liberating! Add to that the fact that with online dating the conversation typically starts from behind a keyboard instead of face to face, and the results can be transformative. I’m an introvert, but I’ve never felt so confident in a social setting as I do now. By the time I find myself on an actual date sitting across the table from an attractive woman, I am no longer intimidated by her beauty, her status, or her own poise and self confidence. She is no longer a stranger to me. She’s my newest old friend. The date is just an opportunity to get to know this friend a little better. 

Now, the lady might not view the situation quite the same way I do. I may be gushing with new found confidence and enthusiasm while she may be a bit more reserved and trying to figure out exactly what’s wrong with me. In retrospect, I’ve found that I may come across a bit too strong. A bit too open and straightforward. A bit too honest. If the lady is less inclined to share the intimacies of her thoughts and feelings than I am, I can tend to jump in and fill the quiet moments with more details about my own thoughts and feelings. As I reflect on that, it occurs to me that it may make me look narcissistic; like I’m only interested in talking about myself. (Thinking of the Toby Keith song I Wanna Talk About Me) What I’m really after is to encourage the lady to share herself with me by setting an example. Note to self: Rein it in! Temper the enthusiasm. Filters aren’t necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, nobody walks away from a conversation with me lately thinking they haven’t seen the real me.

That was a long winded introduction. I don’t believe I overthink things, but I definitely do overexplain them!

Christine, I dropped the ball on our relationship. I know. It wasn’t a relationship. It was just a date. But I dropped the ball. I called later, on short notice, to ask you to that concert at the Smyrna Opera House. You already had plans. Perfectly normal sequence of events. I chose to read between the lines. Either you really had plans or it was a polite way to say “no thanks.” 50/50 odds. I chose to assume the latter. The latest messages between us on both eHarmony and text were from me, the implication (unwritten rule) was that the next message should be from you. No message was forthcoming. I made the judgment (right or wrong) that you were probably not interested in pursuing the relationship. I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't seek to clarify the situation before coming to a conclusion. My honest assessment is that you are a bit out of my league anyway in some respects, the age difference being the most obvious one. So I let it go. But I occasionally gave it some thought, and New Years seemed to offer a good opportunity (good excuse?) to close out this chapter.

Getting back into dating after so many years has been an experience. On balance, a wonderful one, actually, but not without some hiccups. I honestly think I get better at it with every online conversation and every in person meeting. You played a some small role in that. I enjoyed meeting you. I enjoyed our dinner together. I think of you fondly regardless of which of the two narratives I’ve spun in my head is the accurate one.

Also, if I may use that whole "no filters" thing as a sort of "Get Out of Jail Free" card,  let me take the opportunity to also mention that you’re a great kisser.

Good luck to you, and once again, have a Happy New Year.

Jess

What's the Difference Between a Libertarian and a Librarian?

Sounds like the beginning of a riddle, but it's not.

Just a few days ago, my friend Bill, the state chairman of the Libertarian Party of Delaware as it happens, approached one of the local libraries in northern Delaware to propose a Liberty Story Hour. The program was to be presented by him and perhaps a colleague or two. The program would feature stories about the founding fathers, limited government, responsible spending, etc. and would be tailored to children and be presented in an age appropriate way.

Bill got a very polite response from the library.

 

 

Thank you so much for the program description. I spoke to my manager about the program and we are going to pass. While we appreciate the literacy aspect of this, we just don't think this would be a good fit for our public library. Again, thank you for considering us!

Have a great evening.

Signed xxxxxxxx

(she/her/hers)

Her Title xxxxxxx

That was a polite response, right? If the response had been written in Ordinary English then I'd have said yes. It was a polite response. But the response wasn't written in Ordinary English. That was Bureaucrat English. When you translate from Bureaucrat English to Ordinary English, what Bill really got was a big fat Fuck You! Yes, I realize that this paragraph gets cut if published anywhere else but on my own blog, but I had to get it out of my system!

Not a good fit for "our library?" What does that mean exactly? Not in keeping with "our" community standards maybe? Not in keeping with "our" politics perhaps? Back in 2019, another local library held a Drag Queen Story Time. Oh, you thought those only happened in places like San Francisco or Boston or New York City? Nope. This Drag Queen Story Time was held right here in our own back yard at the Old New Castle Library. I'll emphasize, it was not the same library my friend Bill approached, but they're both right here in our community.

Now, let me just say, it's not that I was a huge advocate of Liberty Story Hour, but I didn't oppose it either. It seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and a wise man once told me, "Don't criticize someone's activism just because it isn't your particular brand of activism." So I'm not writing this article to advocate for Liberty Story Hour in our public libraries. I'm not even writing this article to oppose Drag Queen Story Times in those libraries. There are plenty of others who may be motivated to write those articles and God bless them. I'm writing this article to ask just how relevant libraries are these days. And maybe to talk a little bit about pronouns. Heaven forgive me, but we have to take a little time to talk about those pronouns.

I'm a traditionalist. I don't use pronouns. By the way, traditionalist is not a dog whistle for bigot, homophobe, xenophobe or any other "phobe." It's not even a dog whistle for conservative. I'm a Libertarian. Tradition is not a dirty word, and it's not a dog whistle for anything else. If you want to talk about a dog whistle, let's talk about those pronouns! Would anybody have any difficulty guessing on which end of the political spectrum or even the tradition spectrum that librarian resides? Not once you realize what information listing your pronouns really conveys. Now that's a dog whistle. To be honest, I'm grateful for this dog whistle. The message comes through loud and clear. I think we know who we're dealing with here. Perhaps Bill should have offered to do Liberty Story Hour in drag.

Oddly enough, on reflection, I realized that despite having read that librarian's email several times, I had never noticed what her pronouns were. Don't misunderstand me. I recognized that she had listed her pronouns, but the information those pronouns were meant to convey, never registered with me. I don't mock this librarian for whatever sexual orientation those pronouns reveal. I mock her for the arrogance, the presumptuousness, the narcissism that posting them reveals. I don't ridicule her based on any new awareness of who she prefers to have sex with. I ridicule her for presuming that I care, or even that I should care!

So, enough about pronouns. What about libraries?

There is a lot of controversy surrounding what those of us with traditional values see as an attempt to indoctrinate children in our public schools. Between the 1619 Project, climate alarmism, Gay Pride, and all the other woke agendas being pushed in our public schools, it's surprising they have any time left to teach the ABC's. Judging by test scores, maybe they don't. I think it's time to recognize that, generally speaking, the same woke ideologues who control the education system in this country, also control most of the libraries. It used to be the responsible thing to do to promote and fund libraries in your community. Is it still such a good idea? If libraries have become the domain of propagandists and indoctrinators, maybe the answer is no.

Maybe that librarian did my friend Bill a favor by rejecting his idea for a Liberty Story Hour. Why would a traditionalist want to lure parents of impressionable kids into a library to get habituated to a system that may allow you your Liberty Story Hour this week, but next week might be sponsoring a field trip for six year olds to the local drag bar. They could use Liberty Story Hour as a gateway to introduce your kids to all the other woke agendas to which they are so devoted. Parents have a difficult enough time fending off that indoctrination in the public schools. If you're one of those traditional parents, why would you then willingly subject your children to the same propaganda at the library? Especially if these programs are predominantly run by a bunch of woke, pronoun sporting harpies more interested in recruiting soldiers for "the cause" than in promoting the welfare of your kids.

I used to be a huge fan of libraries. Once upon a time, I was also a big fan of Public Radio, but they've managed to ruin that too. I spent a lot of time in libraries. At one time, I looked forward to my retirement years when I could spend even more time in libraries. Then a funny thing happened. This new thing called the internet came along, and all of a sudden, libraries just didn't seem that relevant any more. These days, that's what the internet is for. Maybe its time to realize that even though it was once a good idea to promote libraries to your children, perhaps in today's climate, that's not so important. Is blind devotion to the anachronistic idea of a physical library really such sound thinking? As far as public policy is concerned, perhaps less money should be devoted to libraries and a bit more focus placed on ensuring an internet free of viewpoint censorship.

There was a time when criticizing libraries would have been considered almost sacrilegious, and I'm sure there are hordes of angry, blue haired, pierced, and tattooed, Bernie loving librarians organizing, even as we speak, preparing the campaign to get me canceled for daring to speak against the institution. For them, I offer this:

A Libertarian walks into a library and asks the librarian for an ounce of legal cannabis. The librarian replies indignantly, "Sir, this is a library." The Libertarian apologizes, leans in a bit closer and WHISPERS back, "Sorry. I'd like an ounce of legal cannabis."

 

Just in Time for Easter, Marijuana Legislation is Resurrected in Delaware

 On March 10th of this year, House Bill 305, a bill to legalize marijuana, failed in the General Assembly.  Contrary to the conventional wisdom, many Libertarians were glad to see this legislation go down in flames (or if you prefer, up in smoke).  Sure, it legalized recreational cannabis, but it also created a labyrinth of taxation, regulation, compliance obstacles and licensing carve outs for favored Democratic social justice constituencies.  You could forget about the mom and pop pot businesses and a new cash crop for local farmers.  The numbers of growers, manufacturers and retailers was to be strictly regulated.  Licenses were to be limited and expensive.  This bill was written with the Corporate Cannabis Industry in mind.  It was a crony capitalist's wet dream.  And it didn't allow for home grow either.  The State's alcohol regulations allow home hobbyists to brew beer and make wine for personal consumption.  Why no similar concessions to the casual cannabis enthusiast with some potted plants (pun intended) in his basement under a grow light?  Good riddance to a bad bill.  We want legalized weed, but not at any price.  The next time, we'll get a better bill, and as it turns out, the next time might be now.

Several days ago I saw that Delaware Representative Ed Osienski (D-Newark), the sponsor of the failed HB 305, had introduced two new bills to try again to legalize marijuana in the state.  One bill, (HB 371) is short and sweet; just over two pages.  It legalizes possession for recreational use, in private, of under an ounce, by those 21 and over, if acquired without remuneration.  I know there were an awful lot of clauses in that last sentence, but as laws go, what could be simpler than that?  Don't ask how one is presumed to have obtained said marijuana if you can't buy it or grow it.  It's like they're saying you can privately smoke all the free marijuana you can get your hands on as long as you get it in less than one ounce quantities.  The new bill fails to address how to find those generous  philanthropists who are presumably going to be giving away all that free marijuana.   This minor omission  reminds me of the South Park story of the underpants gnomes and their mystery plan for making profit.  

But there is more to the story.  Accompanying HB 371, the legalization bill, is HB 372, the taxation and regulation bill.  And where HB 371 is just over two pages and relatively easy for a layperson to understand, HB 372 is almost 50 pages long and will put even the average insomniac to sleep after the first few paragraphs.  I'm sure there are no hidden surprises or corporate giveaways anywhere in those fifty or so pages of legislative legal jargon.  In describing the new legislation, the State News quoted Representative Osienski as follows:

“I think the whole idea of breaking it up into two is allowing those that have concerns about legalization to have the opportunity to vote no on it, but then have the opportunity to vote yes on regulation,”

When I first read this, I was furious.  I thought to myself, "How hypocritical can these politicians get?  The original bill failed, and in its resurrected form they are more concerned with cementing in place the horrible taxation and the regulation parts and to hell with the personal liberty aspect of legalization."  I was reminded of the Lily Tomlin quote.  "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up!" I was really pissed, but it turns out, I was wrong. And wrong in a good way.

 Every once in a while something happens to remind me that I'm not as smart as I think I am.  This was one of those times.  It turns out that tax related bills have a higher threshold for passage than other routine pieces of legislation.  Regular bills require a simple majority, but tax bills require a 3/5 vote in order to pass.  The original HB 305 which contained both legalization and taxation failed despite a vote of 23 in favor and 14 opposed because this bill required 25 votes in order to pass. No Republicans supported the bill, and four Representatives, two Republicans and two Democrats, did not vote.  It missed passage by only two votes.  Close, but no cigar.  

So what happens now?  Well, legalization alone as defined in HB 371 only requires a simple majority to pass the House.  There are already enough co-sponsors of the bill to insure that happens.  Of course, we don't know how the bill will fare in the Senate, and the Governor has expressed opposition to marijuana legalization in the past. And overriding a veto would require a 3/5 vote of both chambers, so we would be right back where we started.  Still, I wonder if the Representatives who did not vote last time could be persuaded to support the new legalization bill.  Perhaps a few Republicans could even be persuaded to do the same if they could successfully amend HB 372 to reduce the taxation aspects of that legislation.  Representative Michael Smith (R-Newark)  had suggested he might have supported the old bill had the Democrats been willing to agree to certain amendments that would have allowed past felony convictions for certain tax or drug related crimes to be considered when approving licenses.  On the face of it, those sound like reasonable amendments.  I'm not sure why Democrats in the House let HB 305 fail last March rather than adopt those changes.  Maybe there is more to the story.  I'd like to know what happened in the smoke filled room back then, because that drama is about to be replayed, and I'd like to see a different outcome this time, hopefully resulting in the passage of cannabis legalization.

 So what should we advocate for going forward?  Well, obviously we want to support legislators in the House who are already supporting HB 371 and encourage the others, both Republicans and Democrats, to join them to form a veto proof majority.  And of course, we need to urge the members of the Senate to do likewise.  If we could accomplish that, I'd be happy to see HB 372 simply fail.  Wouldn't that be a delicious bit of irony.  Legislators try to manipulate the parliamentary system to secure more tax revenue and service special interests and accidentally succeed in advancing personal liberty without scoring any of the graft.  It's almost like a Libertarian fairy tale come true.  But let's be honest.  That's not going to happen.  If HB 371 passed and HB 372 failed, the Governor would simply veto HB 371, and the General Assembly would find an excuse not to override.  

It looks like we might be pretty close to a win in Delaware for cannabis legalization. How far can we push legislators to improve these bills without the whole enterprise failing again like it did last time?  Well, the first thing to say is, if the bills aren't improved, then I for one would just as soon see them fail again.  Now is not the time to be timid.  Time is on our side.  Legalization will eventually become a reality.  There is no need to sell out to Corporate Cannabis when we are this close.  Let them want legalization more than we do.  We'll get a better bill with that mindset, even if it takes a little longer. 

So, if we aren't likely to get HB 371 without HB 372, what do we want to change?  First and foremost, I would say, add home grow.  That has got to be top of the list from the individual freedom point of view.  If it's good enough for alcohol, it's good enough for cannabis.  I can't think of any excuse but a lame one for refusing to add that.  I will never be convinced that such an omission wasn't the result of  industry lobbying.  Limit quantities if you must, but under no circumstances should we accept a bill that handcuffs aficionados of the noble herb to a product marketed by Phillip Morris or Pfizer Pharmaceuticals.  After that, legislators should be pushed to increase the number of licenses issued to grow, manufacture and sell, and to lower the costs of those licenses along with the rate of taxation applied. How can the State expect to eliminate the black market for cannabis if their taxation and regulatory structure prices the legal stuff out of the market?  And ditch the special carve outs for licensing Democrats' favored special interest constituencies.  With an abundance of licenses, they shouldn't be needed anyway.  These new laws should provide a windfall to Delaware farmers and entrepreneurs, not to the State and large corporate interests.  If Republicans can't stop legalization, and they refuse to support it, let them at least apply a more capitalist friendly structure to the regulation.  With a little bit of effort, maybe we can shame them into following those illusory free market principles they claim to believe in.  Or is that another fairy tale?  

Delaware legislators are giving Cannabis legalization a Mulligan this year.  Let's hope they don't screw it up this time.

My Open Letter to the LNC

 

10 November 2021 

From: Jess McVay 

To: Susan Hogarth 

Dear Susan: 

 My name is Jess McVay. I don't think we have met before but I believe you are acquainted with my wife and son, Mary Pat and Will. I am not directly involved in this recent dispute over who rightfully controls the State Board of Delaware and its assets, but as you might imagine, sharing a last name with two of the principals and opposing their actions in the strongest possible terms, I feel compelled to write. A more conventional letter might start by lamenting how much it pains me to involve myself in this matter in light of the family relationships involved, but I must confess that at this moment, I do not feel any such pain. I am Will's dad. I love my son, but I hate what he did. As for the pain, I fully anticipate that some day in the not too distant future, I will feel the full weight of that burden. But as for now, there is an urgent problem in Delaware that must be addressed. There will be time for family considerations later. In the meantime, I am trying, though occasionally failing, to temper my actions, in anticipation of the difficulties my position may introduce into these relationships. Principles must be defended, often at great cost, and sometimes even when it involves conflict with family. 

I wish to express my outrage at the travesty that is unfolding in Delaware and demand action from the Libertarian National Committee. Some bad actors in Delaware, led by my son, are perverting justice, robbing Delaware Libertarians of their rights, and embarrassing Libertarians all over the country, not just in Delaware. One of my earliest reactions upon learning of what was happening was that somewhere in America, James Weeks is dancing again. When our ideological adversaries want to argue how ridiculous we are as a political force, they will no longer invoke the name of James Weeks. From now on, Will McVay will be the poster child for their derision. Great news for Mr Weeks, and perhaps, contrary to what you might expect, great news for Will as well. Will likes attention. For those on the Libertarian National Committee who have a responsibility to preserve the reputation of the Libertarian Party, this incident poses both an obstacle and an opportunity. I think the reason it's an obstacle is obvious. It would take too much time and sidetrack the purpose of this letter to recount the myriad of injuries that Will has visited upon the party, its image, and its Delaware membership, a few specific members in particular. I'll leave it to the principals in this matter to make that case. They have been working diligently to assemble the evidence that will inform the jury, so to speak, and compel them to act in favor of Chairman Hinds and his Board. My goal with this letter is to persuade the Committee that it has an opportunity, and more importantly, an urgent responsibility to see justice done, restore integrity in Delaware, and not incidentally in the process, to protect the Party's image throughout the nation. In the process it must also censure those who have demonstrated such contempt for both justice and integrity and who, with a casual disregard for the optics of their actions, have seriously jeopardized the Party's reputation. 

So who the hell am I, and why should the LNC care? I am one of the nation's small L libertarians, and I am watching. To be honest, I am presently one of the nation's less committed libertarians, at least these days. I used to be more committed. I've been an active member of the Party in Delaware since roughly 2010. Over the years I've helped directly with campaigns, actively raised and contributed money, and held positions on the State Board. I've been a delegate to national conventions, helped plan state conventions, and I even represented the Party as a candidate for governor several years ago. But lately I have become disillusioned. I was uninspired by the Party's 2020 candidate and more recently, I was disappointed by the Party's tepid response to COVID policy and social media censorship. It would be no exaggeration to say that I felt as politically homeless inside the Libertarian Party as I had felt outside it prior to 2010. Currently, I am a registered Libertarian once again, but I am not confident that I will remain one indefinitely. I have many friends in the party, but I'm not convinced the Libertarian Party is the answer to promoting liberty in America. Delaware is the bluest of blue states, and the LPD's success in Delaware consists of little else beyond showing the flag. The National LP seems distant, impotent, and more and more irrelevant to me with every passing day. And yet, despite all this, I came back. I'm back, but I'm not sure how long I'll be staying. I'm just like thousands and thousands of other big L Libertarians and small L libertarians across the nation, and we are watching. 

 In making any future decisions whether to stay or go, I do know how I will judge the Party going forward. A clue resides in the Pinned Tweet that I placed on my Twitter feed way back in February 2021, long before all this business happened. It's a brief reflection. Not borrowed from anyone else, but my own composition. 

Not Victory 

Not Wealth 

Not Love 

Not Peace 

Oddly enough, not even Liberty 

#Justice 

Justice was important to me then. Justice is important to me now. The search for Justice is the only reason I am bothering to write this letter. I'm writing because there are victims of injustice, not because those victims happen to belong to the Mises Caucus. Most victims of injustice are far removed from the world I live in. I am often helpless to assist them. But these Delaware victims are close to home, and they are friends of mine. The fact that my family members are responsible for their victimization imposes an even greater duty on me to support them. My reasons have very little to do with the Libertarian Party of Delaware. Despite a long association with the LPD, I'm not enthusiastic about their prospects for political success. And my reasons are certainly not about the National LP. They are just a means to an end. They are the one institution that has it in their power to see justice done if they're up to the task that is. If they're even willing to try. I'm not sure I'll be sticking around the Libertarian Party after this go round. At this point, it's kind of up to the party to prove they're worthy of my support. If this was a job interview, I'd be the one asking the questions to see if we're a good fit, not the other way around. I can tell you one thing with certainty. I say this dispassionately and with no anger and no malice. If the LP can't fix this, the Party is dead to me. As I said before, I am watching. Big L and small L libertarians just like me all over the country are watching. 

 I am not a member of the Mises Caucus, but I have many friends within that group, some old, and some new. My son will state in public and occasionally for the podcast cameras that the coup he initiated, though he won't call it a coup, has nothing to do with the Mises Caucus. He'll claim it has to do with obstruction and gridlock on the Board, with misunderstandings about Board members' affiliations, and about protecting the social media image of the Delaware Party. But he'll insist it has nothing to do with the Mises Caucus. That's simply not true. I am Williams father. I am greatly saddened and a bit perplexed by his recent actions, but I can tell you one thing with certainty. This as absolutely about the Mises Caucus. I don't think that factionalism within a state board is a bad thing, and even if it is, it's a normal thing. For the past decade or so, the Delaware Board did not know factionalism. They were a close knit group of like minded friends with the common goal of more Liberty. In 2021, that changed. It became more factional, just like hundreds of other political party boards all over the country. The goal was still Liberty, but now there were different views on how best to pursue it. Normal boards develop ways to deal with factionalism. Indeed, why would boards resort to formats like Robert's Rules if not as an acknowledgment that factionalism exists, and it can be dealt with reasonably. There are ways to coexist with fellow Libertarians who may not agree with you on everything. You approach them with good faith and an open mind. You don't murder them while they sleep. 

A week or so after all this started I called Will. I figured that despite my anger over what he'd done, I owed him a rational conversation on the subject. I tried to talk him off this ledge he was on. I focused on things like ethics and integrity, and most of all on Justice. He listened patiently to my arguments. I hoped I was getting through to him. I began to speculate on possible outcomes and whether any of the party leadership would permit him to continue an active role after what he'd done. I doubted it, and I told him so. When I was done he responded. He wasn't going to quit. He asked me why I ever thought he would. He said he thought he could win. Naturally, his response disappointed me. It reminded me of the story of Stalin's response to a French diplomat who suggested that Stalin stop his persecution of Russian Catholics. Stalin asked the diplomat how many divisions the Pope had. 

 

 

This wasn't about ethics to Will. This was about power. At that point the phone conversation ended. In the days that followed, Will seems to have become even more determined to persist. Two nights ago, gloating and surrounded by a few of his supporters and co-conspirators, he declared to me, confidently, assertively, and arrogantly, that it was already over. He had already won. I hope he is wrong. Delaware needs the LNC's help to make it so. 

As normal and reasonable as factionalism is on a State Board, there is no place for politics in the adjudication of this dispute. I worry that the LNC will deal with this as a political matter rather than a judicial one. I'm afraid that the factional affiliations of the Committee members will override whatever commitment they may have to defending our reputation as the Party of Principle. But my concerns notwithstanding, this is the venue in which this portion of the dispute must be resolved. I feel I must emphasize that any and all decisions and judgments that are made must be made on the basis of ethical and procedural considerations, and those decisions must be seen to have been made free of political or factional influences or interventions. I have expressed concerns on my social media pages about the ability of the LNC to take the politics out of this issue and resolve it on its merits. The Committee's recent performance in New Hampshire does not exactly inspire confidence, and as I've already stated, (Cue broken record) Libertarians will be watching. 

High minded values like Justice aside for a moment, there are some other more mundane, more pedestrian, more political, reasons to fix this problem quickly. Many in the media don't care about Libertarians, but what if the media chose to tell this story. What if, for instance, comedian and popular podcaster Dave Smith chose to highlight it? What if that brought it to the attention of outlets like Reason Magazine or Kennedy Nation? What if on some slow news day in the future, Tucker Carlson or Lester Holt ran the story to ridicule the Party and fill a five minute news segment or two? How does the LNC want that story to end? “This crazy stuff happened, and the LP did nothing except let it fester”, or “The LP acted swiftly and fixed the problem.” If this burlesque show performance in Delaware is allowed to succeed, we will see repeats of these destructive and distracting sideshows. Indeed, some would suggest that this episode is not the first, but is itself the repeat. The circumstances strangely resemble those in New Hampshire several months ago. This is a pretty good example of “History does not repeat, but it rhymes.” It's almost as if there was some larger organized plan afoot that is bigger than just Will McVay. If anyone is concerned about the Party's image or even the Party's survival, that should be terrifying. Libertarians are watching. Soon, the whole nation could be watching. 

 I have always been told that if you're trying to persuade someone to do something, don't neglect at some point to directly ask them to do it. Candidates might spend twenty minutes on a stump speech giving the voters all the reasons in the world why they put their trust in that candidate and then never actually ask them for their vote. I won't make that mistake. 

Here's what I'm asking for: 

I'm asking the Committee to recognize that Bill Hinds is the rightful Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Delaware. He was duly elected to that position by a majority of those present at the State Convention in June 2021. 

 I'm asking the Committee to recognize that Amy LePore is the rightful Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Delaware. She was duly elected to that position by a majority of those present at the State Convention in June 2021. 

I'm asking the Committee to recognize that Dave Casey may be an asshole, but he's our asshole, and he is also a rightful Representative to the State Board from Newcastle County. He was duly elected by the members of the Newcastle County Libertarian Party to represent them on the State Board. 

I'm asking the Committee to recognize that Dylan Griffith is a rightful Representative to the State Board from Newcastle County. He was duly elected by the members of the Newcastle County Libertarian Party to represent them on the State Board. 

I'm asking the Committee to declare that none of the actions undertaken by Will McVay or any of his proxies from 1 October 2021 to the present are recognized by the National LP because they did not have proper recognized authority to perform those actions. This includes but is not limited to the Discord meeting held on 1 October and the Zoom call held on 31 October. Their actions are all declared invalid. This includes, but is not limited to all changes to By-laws or Articles of Association, all member and officer expulsions, all Board appointments made during this time period, all County Party disaffiliations, the de-credentialling of all 2161 (as of 1 November 2021) Delaware Libertarians as eligible voting party members, all the selective member re-credentialling, especially those of Will's co-conspirators and allies, all appointments of County level officers and State Board Representatives, the assignment of administrator privileges of all State and County level electronic assets, to Will McVay, and the vetoing of any county level resolutions by the illegitimate State Board, in particular those passed in Kent County where Will is County Chair where Will was rebuked and an investigation of his actions called for. Further, the Committee should state publicly and unequivocally that the basis for these decisions is judicial and procedural. 

 I'm asking the Committee to censure Will McVay for his recent actions. Further, the Committee should state publicly and unequivocally that the basis for this censure is the Committee's determination that his actions were grotesquely unethical and that they showed utter disregard of the Party's reputation and its commitment to remaining the Party of Principle. Further, that Will McVay, as part of this censure, shall not be credentialed as a delegate to the 2022 LP convention from Delaware or any other state. 

I'm asking the Committee to give serious consideration to expanding that censure to other members of Mr. McVay's cabal whose behavior you determine warrants such censure. 

I'm asking the Committee to declare that should any dispute arise in regard to credentialing delegates to the LP National Convention in 2022, the Committee commits to recognizing the delegates endorsed by the duly elected State Board of the LPD as constituted in accordance with the above requested Committee actions and currently Chaired by Mr. Hinds. 

I'm asking the Committee to commit to assisting the duly elected State Board in their efforts to recover their ballot access in Delaware. 

I'm asking the Committee to commit to assisting the duly elected State Board in their efforts to recover access to their social media accounts to include, at the very least, directing all traffic initiated through the National Libertarian Party site to the appropriate sites of the duly elected State Board of Delaware. 

In conclusion: 

They say there are two sides to every story. That's true here too. One side is pursuing justice. 

 

That side has right on their side, and they can show you all the receipts 

That side has acted ethically and with integrity 

The other side just wants to win. 

 

Thank you Susan. 

 Feel free to contact me if there are any questions via any of the various venues listed above.

 Please help us Obiwan...

 Yours in Liberty, 

 Jess McVay

Is Q Anon an Elaborate Psy Op?

 

This video is cued to start at 40 minutes 30 seconds.

Robert Barnes has a theory that Q Anon is a psy-op. A psychological operation developed by somebody to defeat Trump. They promoted a series of false narratives designed to reassure Trump supporters that they were winning, and that all they needed to do was "trust the plan". Every time a prediction failed to come true, they'd come up with a new narrative to explain how it was all still a part of some grand strategy. Like the series of trenches during WW I into which you could retreat when the first one was overrun. Trump would declassify documents, and we'd all live happily ever after. Then the declassified stuff was filled with redactions so you were no wiser than you were before the release. Then Bill Barr got appointed Attorney General and John Durham was on the case. Everyone was waiting for a blockbuster release of information just before the election. We know how that turned out. Thanks for nothing Messrs. Barr and Durham. Trump is luring them into a false sense of security so he can draw out the culprits, some said. He's about to drop the hammer. Every failure was explained by a new promise of victory to come if you just trusted the plan. Like James Lileks over at Ricochet said, it's just like those doomsday cultists who revise the date that the world will end each time a deadline comes and goes and the birds are still singing. If we'd known Durham would turn out to be a dud, would we have expended as little more effort in get out the vote, or countering some of the Democratic lawfare that contributed to gutting mail in ballot security?

Eventually those who were the most committed to trust in the plan put the final nail in the coffin of Trump's struggle to expose the problems with this election. They committed violence at the Capitol. Nobody, and I mean nobody, will listen to the evidence of election irregularities now. The MSM got just what they needed to finally vanquish Donald Trump. So now we get a 24/7 campaign by Democrats, big tech and the press to demonize anybody who supported the president, and they'll push it as far as they can. Winning isn't enough. They want us defeated, demoralized, and silent. Silent by disappointment , silent due to fear of labeling, or silent by force if necessary. Hence the attack on social media. If the masters of psychological operations wrote books about their craft, this one would be a best seller. Trump supporters were lulled into a false sense of security and then tricked into becoming the agents of their own destruction. My guess is that 99% of Q folks probably aren't even in on the con. They're just dupes. The journalists and bloggers who claimed that Trump was playing 3-D chess probably believed it. They weren't stupid. They were naive. Sidney Powell isn't stupid. She was powned (Urban Dictionary: Purely Owned). General McInerney with his stories about Hammer and Scorecard? Probably the same.

So what happens now? Well for starters, anybody with any sense has to disown Q Anon. It's like Buckley purging the John Birchers from the conservative movement in the 50's. I'm sympathetic to the Q folks because I think most of them meant well, but they acted stupidly, and they tainted everything that the populist conservative movement led by Donald Trump really stands for. We all need political allies in order for our ideas to prevail, but there is a limit to how far I will stretch the range of acceptability just to build a bigger coalition. There's no room for bigots and there is no room for Q. And I'm not implying the two are synonymous, but there might be some overlap.

What do these conspirators, whoever they are, do now. Well ideally, they just disappear and cover their tracks. The win would be less decisive if people discovered the truth. No one is in quite as much awe of the magician once they see how the illusion was performed. But the cat is out of the bag. Folks are already whispering about psy-ops. Well, the playbook says discredit those people. Paint them as crazy. Paint them as fringe. If that fails, frame them for sexual misconduct (Scott Ritter). If that fails maybe even kill them (Michael Hastings). Robert Barnes: I love you man. Please behave yourself, and please, please "Be careful out there!" (First TV reference--Hill Street Blues)

 

I'M RE-POSTING THIS EVERY DAY UNTIL I LEAVE FACEBOOK AND TWITTER

 

 

 The previously clandestine and now quite overt censoring of conservative voices on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Platforms has now reached dangerous levels. This is not just about Trump. Social media is critical to modern political discourse. The censorship must be resisted. That means targeting profitability, and that means boycotts. But I won't cut off my nose to spite my face. I will continue to use these platforms in the short term while taking the following measures to abandon them as soon as it is practical. 

 

1. To the greatest extent possible, I will try to post nearly exclusively on Parler and MeWe 

2. I will post on Twitter and Facebook only links to those Parler and MeWe posts 

3. You are not forced to join those sites to view my posts, but I hope once you are on the sites reading my stuff, you will take the opportunity to join those communities. Please join/follow/friend me when you get there. 

4. Eventually, once those alternative communities have reached the critical mass needed to function as effectively as Twitter and Facebook once did, I will abandon those legacy services entirely. Ironically, with their recent actions, those legacy companies may have accelerated the realization of that network effect functionality. 

 

In the mean time, here is what else I am doing: 

To the extent possible, I am viewing my favorite video podcasts on Rumble instead of YouTube. They don't censor political speech and their terms are financially much more appealing for content creators. Also, they have plans to incorporate live streaming in the new year. 

I have abandoned Google as my search engine on all platforms. I use Duck Duck Go 

I am researching my options for switching email providers to jettison G-Mail. Looking at Protonmail which offers end to end encryption. They don't mine your emails for data about you to sell. Even if privacy isn't your primary concern, you'll be incrementally robbing Google of a source of revenue. 

 

I'm @Exaeroman at Parler 

I'm Jesse McVay at MeWe 

https://Rumble.com 

https://DuckDuckGo.com

https://Protonmail.com

 

Feel free to visit me on Parler or MeWe and comment if you have other suggestions for alternative social media platforms. 

If you agree with this approach to taking back Social Media Freedom, please share and ReTweet (Echo) this post.