The crypto tidal wave is here. What does it mean for conservatives?

But what’s in your wallet?

Two big cryptocurrency news stories hit recently. This week, Coinbase, a large cryptocurrency exchange, went public on the NASDAQ stock market. It direct listed its stocks and is trading now around 340 dollars a share. When you look into the 8K and other filed forms, you see Coinbase is actually a profitable company, unlike many of the IPOs during 2020. The other big news is that Visa is partnering with Anchorage, a cryptocurrency bank, to process transactions in US Dollar Coin (USDC). It’s big news because most people probably haven’t heard of stablecoins before, only being familiar with the often violent stock movements of Bitcoin.

When I wrote earlier about cryptocurrency, I had in mind that by the end of this year, we’ll have more normal people using crypto and it becoming less of a big deal to do so. For conservative groups, now through the 2022 election cycle is going to be a time where everyone and their brother gets labeled as a hate group. The SPLC deliberate mislabeling of groups that resulted in Visa and Mastercard canceling their accounts was just the first act in the long war. If you thought Facebook and Google filtering wasn’t bad enough, I’m already seeing Parler become “inaccessible” when searching through Google, but pops up just fine on the Brave Browser using Tor.

Cryptocurrency is going to be the way you go about your lives and stop being canceled. If gun stores have their credit card accounts turned off “for auditing purposes” or some other baloney excuse, what are you going to do? Withdraw lots of cash, which not only is declining in value thanks to our printing volumes of money, but is automatically tracked by your bank and can trigger yet another investigation? If you’ve ever taken a large amount of cash on a plane or withdrawn from a casino, you’ll know what forms I’m talking about. And while that level of scrutiny normally sits at $10,000, it can be lowered without much fuss by executive order.

Your free exchange of value for goods is being threatened by a group of left wing nut cases that would be happy for you to die, and that’s not an exaggeration. By attempting to drive conservatives out of the marketplace, they are trying to make the basic day to day transactions and economic engagement so hard that conservatives have little time for anything else. Putting conservatives on a defensive gives these nut cases a chance to push more of their agenda. Boycott all you want, but if you don’t have a credit card, routine living becomes very difficult, and most people will cave if they don’t have another option.

Now is the time to start practicing. Get a crypto account (I recommend Coinbase because its easy, use this link to start) and put some money in it. Practice transferring money from a wallet. Get your hardware wallet and set it up. All of these things will become swamped once the left wing nut cases start really tightening the screws on people. Instead of the Great Toilet Paper Shortage of 2020, you’ll have the Great Cryptocurrency Shortage of 2021. Above all, don’t let losers shut you out of an economy that you helped build and should be allowed to participate in.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

The Saddest Words (and least Surprising) words I’ve read all year

“When pressed, none of the bishops I queried could report a single diocesan seminarian inspired to pursue priestly life by the current Pope. None took any pleasure in acknowledging this.”

Francis X. Maier in a research study done on

The 2nd quote from Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas who links Maier commenting on this quote isn’t much happier.

Again, this parallels my own experience from lectures and retreats I have given to numerous seminarians. In fact, in my spiritual direction of seminarians, I have also had the unenviable task of trying to convince them (and young priests as well) not to give up on the priesthood, so dispirited are many by Francis.

As Usual Fr. Z puts this is perspective:

Popes come and go.  There have been good Popes and bad Popes, important Popes and forgettable Popes.  Men pick them, not the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit’s role in their election is to make sure that the Pope isn’t a total disaster for the Church.  Some disaster, maybe.  Total disaster, never.  Moreover, generations of faithful Catholics lived and died without even knowing the Pope’s name.   In a lot of ways, in daily life, they just aren’t that important.

Pray for him.

Democrats warn the Court

Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ed Markey and three House Democrats announced their plan to expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 13 Justices this week. They were careful to couch their bald power grab in media-friendly terms, sputtering their concern for the “Court’s legitimacy” and insisting they were not packing the Court, they were “unpacking” it. Orwell had today’s Democrats in mind when he wrote “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Hardly a day goes by where they aren’t caught trying to change the very definition of words to suit their political needs.

The plan, notwithstanding media hype, is DOA. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had “no plans” to bring it to a vote. Associate Justice Breyer, one of the stalwart liberals on the Court, warned against expanding the Court as well. And with the late revered-by-progressives Justice Ruth Ginsberg – whose opinion, you might think, would matter to leftists on Court matters, of all things – on the record as against the idea, there’s little pressure on Senators Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema to fall in line. The Democrats don’t have the votes.

Which isn’t the point anyway. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer didn’t expect to win votes with the charisma-deficient Markey leading the charge. Instead, the whole announcement was about something else entirely.

Like everything else the Democrats do with respect to the Court, this was all about abortion.

The Democrats are terrified that Republicans might actually have the votes to seriously curtail, if not outright overturn, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (and Roe v. Wade by extension). Which would throw the issue of abortion back to the state legislatures.

So the Democrats are simply attempting to warn the Court what might happen if they do.

Did I mention Markey’s announcement came two weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to hear their first abortion case since Associate Justice Amy Barrett gave conservatives a 6-3 seeming majority?

There was similar noise back in 2012, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare. And with his decision to uphold President Obamas signature law, Chief Justice Roberts proved to the Left he could be intimidated.

Can Kavanaugh? Gorsuch? Barrett?

We may soon find out.

Leftist Lies, Projection, More Lies, Fighting Back and the Writing on the Wall Under the Fedora

So now that the election is safely won stolen the media thinks it’s safe to say that the Trump Russia bounty story is BS. At least this time Mitt Romney can take solace in the ends justifying the means in a Democrat big lie.


The same day that the we discovered that this story was bunk Joy Reid started hinting that Ron DeSantis was involved in Sex Trafficing. Commenting on the story Sarah Hoyt who has really earned her reputation as required reading over the last three month asked these questions:

Do you ever wonder at the stories the left thinks plausible? Pee gate. Sex trafficking.

Do you ever wonder why?

I don’t wonder. I just presume the left’s skill at projection is why they’re so entrenched in the movie business.


Speaking of projection and falsehood two years after he was driven out of his own company we now know that ‘Papa John’ Schnatter was driven out of the company he founded over a lie.

Again this was one of the previews of coming attractions of the punishment that companies might face for defying the left, which is likely why so many were willing to fund.


Speaking of defying the left Mike Lindell continues to do so and has now started a site called My Store.

He hopes to compete with Amazon on it. I’m thinking of listing my book there and perhaps the next one (if we ever finish the proofreading that is) to get it some exposure although it will likely put a target on my back.

Lindell has a deep faith in God which provides him with courage and to those who say it’s impossible to compete with Amazon I have three letters and two words for you:

AOL & Internet Explorer


Finally I notice that Coke & Delta were notably absent from the latest round of meeting of company to unite behind the woke flag deciding at this point to shut up and brew and fly.

Apparently Kurt Schlichter is right about the backlash the dam is breaking and when it does, it will be fast and furious.

Joe Biden made a very dangerous and foolish statement about Constitutional Amendments

When I saw articles such as this my blood began to boil Biden on the Second Amendment: ‘No amendment is absolute’.  The level of constitutional ignorance demonstrated by Joe Biden when he made this statement is quite staggering.  The fact that he is currently inhabiting the Oval Office and intends to govern by executive order made this statement exceedingly dangerous.

No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” he said. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — recall a freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.”

That statement is made up of several complete mistruths and a couple of half truths about the Second Amendment in particular and constitutional amendments in general.  A careful examination of the transcripts from the drafting of the Bill of  Rights in House of Representatives will prove just how wrong he is.. 

This  quote from June 8 of 1789 explains the general purpose of the Bill of Rights.  As you can see the Bill of Rights was specifically drafted to protect the most important rights of the people by denying the federal government the power and authority to regulate them in any way at all.  That prohibition on the federal government was in fact absolute.

But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. 

This quote from the drafting of the Bill of Rights in the Congress of the United States which was begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789 explains that several states demand that the Bill of Rights be added to the US Constitution to protect our most important rights by chaining the hands of the federal government

The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;–

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, namely,–

Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.

This quote from the House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution August 17, 1789 by Elbridge Gerry informs us that the Second Amendment was added specifically so the people could deal with the federal government if it became abusive to the rights of the people of the United States.   A standing Army was believed by the drafters of the Constitution to be very much a threat to the liberty of the people.  Defense of the United States and the individual states was to be maintained by unorganized state militias made up of the people of the states. That can only be achieved if we the people have military weapons.  When the Bill of Rights was written and ratified all weapons held by the people were military weapons.

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

Mr. Gerry.–This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

It has been maintained by many revisionist historians, college professors, and liberal politicians that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment was a formal military unit, the same as the modern National Guard.  George Mason put the kibosh to that mistruth during the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1787

I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

Richard Henry Lee echoes this in Federal Farmer 18. The National Guard would be considered by Mr. Lee and the rest of the founding fathers to be a select militia rather than one made up of all of the people.

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. As a farther check, it may be proper to add, that the militia of any state shall not remain in the service of the union, beyond a given period, without the express consent of the state legislature,

The creation of the modern National Guard did not begin until the passing of the Militia Act of 1903.  At that time the National Gard was created as a select militia.  That is completely different from the unorganized militia that existed here well before the formal beginning of the United States.  The modern National Guard is the exact type of select militia that was warned against by Richard Henry Lee and the rest of the founding fathers.

No article or Amendment of the US Constitution prevents the states from regulating or interfering with our rights. Every state does however have a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the people living in the state,  I believe every state’s Bill of Rights protects the right to bear arms.  Here are the two articles of the Massachusetts Constitution that protect the right to bear arms of the inhabitants of this state.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Article XVII.  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

If no amendment to the Constitution is absolutely then the clause protecting us from double jeopardy can be taken away from us at the whim of the federal government along with trial by jury, and due process.  Slavery could be reinstated if the Thirteenth Amendment is not absolute.  That is extremely scary.

My WNBA Draft Question

I understand the WNBA draft is today and I have a question:

If a NCAA player who played in the men’s tourney, say a low level NBA prospect publicly defines himself as a woman is he/she eligible for the WNBA draft?

If not why not?

I imagine a player who has no chance at the NBA and looking at a regular job having a huge incentive to do so but that’s just me?

Today is “Everybody Blog About Rebekah Jones” Day

Unlike WJJ Hoge and Stacy McCain I know little about her except what they’ve dug up bur what I’ve seen has “grift” written all over it.

In an internet age such moves have a definite disadvantage because while the MSM will always cover for grift from the left that supports their narrative there are too many outlets that can expose it and despite the advantages of having the tech giants on their side you can’t completely shut out or shut up everyone, which is why such days are important as a disincentive for those who would follow that path.

But of more significance to me personally is this.

In my daily prayers I daily offer the 4th Glorious Mystery of my 1st Rosary for “Stacy’s women” which I define as the various women feminists, cranks, crazy people etc that Stacy McCain brings to our attention on his blog.

I suspect few of these people are subject of anyone’s prayers and while we rightly call out behavior that might be outrageous dishonorable or both we must not neglect to call upon God’s mercy for such people always remembering that if we had encountered Saul of Tarsus, Matthew the Tax Collector or Mary Magdalene on the day before they were touched by Christ we might be inclined to have an “Everybody blog about Saul of Tarsus” day.

Never doubt the infinite mercy of God, nor that each of us need it ourselves and should never begrudge it for others.

Twitter Imitates Yes Minister on Fraud.

Yesterday I wrote about the new law in NH and quoted the governor’s office’s tweet on the subject:

But the real story was how Twitter treated this tweet from the governor’s office I screen captured it just in case:

No replies are automatically show and Twitter automatically is hiding the replies given.

So what kind of offensive replies are there. Do we haven nudity?, profanity? Racism?

Yup that’s it.

Twitter’s reluctance to allow replies to this and thus risk the spreading of this story bring to mind this exchange from the Yes Minister Christmas special when the Head of the foreign office who is looking to be Prime Minister is asked about financial issues that he’s been made aware of:

Duncan: Where did you get all this?

Minster James Hacker: I’m sorry Duncan but if you’re in the run for PM I’ll should feel obliged to share what I know with senior party members. You see if it should all come out in the open there would would have to be a full inquiry from inland revenue, the fraud squad. Of course none of this need matter if it’s all above board as you say it is. And I’m sure it is if you say so.

Duncan: [pauses looking worried]: There was nothing improper!

Minster James Hacker: Oh good so that means I can feel free to talk about it all, bring it all out in the open.

Duncan: Hold on! Financial matters can be misinterpreted people get hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Minster James Hacker: Naturally.

Duncan: Look Jim I’m not sure that I want number ten. The foreign office is a better job in many ways.

Yes Minister: Party Games 1984

The good folks at twitter, CNN, facebook et/all all insist that the last presidential election is completely above board and that anyone who suggests otherwise is some sort of conspiracy theorist. Yet when the governor of a state won by Democrats in 2016 and 2020 signs a law allowed a full audit of ballots in a single county that show irregularities and said governor’s office tweets it out, they do all they can to retard the ability of people to see replies to said tweet.

If things are all above board wouldn’t all these folks trying to stop or suppress various audits welcome them to demonstrate once and for all how honest the election actual was?

Or as I’ve put it many times before:

I’ll believe that all the talk about Election 2020 being stolen is just a conspiracy theory when the pols, companies and tech giants who keep insisting that any such suggestion is just a conspiracy theory stop acting like members of a conspiracy to keep evidence that the last election was stolen a secret

It Has Begun in NH

John the Baptist: It has begun!

Nicodemus: What has begun.

John the Baptist: If he’s healing in secret now the public signs can not be far off!

The Chosen Episode 5 2020

Two days ago at Instapundit I saw this via Althouse:

“A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that 55% of Republicans falsely believe Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was the result of illegal voting or rigging.”

“Additionally, 60% of Republicans incorrectly agree that the election was stolen from Republican Donald Trump.” 

CNN reports, aggressively inserting the view that the people who were polled are wrong. I believe that’s a very unusual way to report an opinion poll, with insistence that the opinion is wrong and apart from any factual reporting that makes it perfectly obvious that the opinion is mistaken. 

Glenn says: “THEY’RE VERY NERVOUS ABOUT THEIR ELECTION NARRATIVE, WHICH IS TOTALLY HOW PEOPLE WHO ARE CONFIDENT THEY WON FAIR AND SQUARE WOULD ACT:” but I think it’s a perfectly logical meme given how hard it is to keep a secret that so many people know:

I submit and suggest that given the sheer number of people involved the question it’s not a question of “If” the fact that the election was stolen will eventually leak out along with details and names. It’s a matter of “when” (That’s incidentally why I would not want to be the insurance company that issued policies on the lives of those lower level grunts who did the heavy lifting). Thus it becomes imperative to force as many people into the false narrative as possible so that when the facts do come up more people have a stake in ignoring, dismissing or outright denying them.

Maureen O’Hara knew that the only person who could betray her secret was herself. Kirschner and those who are openly (and quietly) backing him know that they don’t have the advantage O’Hara did. All they can do is continue is to do their best to manipulate the terrain so that when the facts eventually leak out as many people as possible will have pledged to look the other way. 

Well while everyone has been working doubletime to prevent or slow audits of ballots in AZ and GA something has been going on in NH:

You might recall a story from February about Windham NH where a Democrat who called for an audit of a local election that they lost by 24 votes had an unexpected side effect:

Hand Recount in Windham (Rock Dist. 7) Reveals “Machine” Shorted Every Republican by About 300 Votes

Ironically this hand count wasn’t called for by the GOP but by a Democrat looking to flip a local election

That is very strange. That is a large number, large enough that a Republican who lost by 100 to 300 votes would not ask for a recount. Of course, no Republican asked for a recount. It was a Democrat looking for lost votes (24 of them) to perhaps flip one seat in that local election.

And look at what they found. Something, unexpected. Something we were not supposed to see?

St Laurent (d) lost 100 votes, and their Republican opponents all gained 300, plus or minus three votes.

What was less unexpected was the reaction of Youtube to this news:

Gateway pundit noted this story and interviewed on camera the Belknap County GOP committee member Dr. David Strang M.D. on the subject:

David told The Gateway Pundit that the Republican candidates in Windham had 6% of their total votes removed by the Dominion-owned voting machines.

According to Dr. Strang, these same Dominion-owned machines are used in 85% of the towns in New Hampshire.

Youtube took down the video locked their account and gave them a “strike” for upload it.

Well while Youtube could keep the interview off their platform they couldn’t keep Granite Grok the leading conservative voice in NH from reporting on it and therefore local republican from hearing about it and in the NH state legislature in the house and senate acted:

In a HUGE WIN for We, the People, and for New Hampshire election integrity, the NH Senate voted 24-0 just minutes ago to concur with the House amended version of SB43.

This Bill was championed by Senator Bob Giuda and will validate election integrity in our state by mandating a forensic audit on Windham’s 11/3/20 general election ballots and voting machines as configured on November 3, 2020.

The forensic audit will determine the huge discrepancy between the election day results and subsequent recount of Windham’s November 3, 2020, State Rep. race where a difference of 1,363 total votes from just 10,006 ballots was uncovered.

There’s an advantage to having a state where the legislators only make $300 and are not dependent on political power for advancement in life. However the governor of the state is named Sununu his father the previous governor was also named Sununu and served with Bush 1. They were pushing Kasich in 2016 are not known as big Trump men so one might wonder if he would sign this bill.

Wonder no longer:

HUGE NEWS! I just received word that Governor Chris Sununu signed Senate Bill SB43 into law.  It mandates a forensic audit of the ballots that were cast, and the voting machines that were used, by Windham, NH during the November 3, 2020 election. The Bill became law because Senator Bob Guida and NH activists demanded answers as to why the results that were produced by Windham’s voting machines on election day for the State Rep race were drastically different from the results of a recount that was performed nine days later.

Now to be fair this only mandates an audit in this county vs statewide nor does it guarantee game over:

Now that SB43 is law, the responsibility shifts from the Legislature and Governor to the NH Secretary of State, the NH Attorney General, and the Windham Board of Selectmen.  They are now tasked with hiring the forensic auditors to ensure that no stone is left unturned.  All of the questions need to be answered, with no assumptions made.

The Windham Board of Selectmen will choose one team, and the Secretary of State and AG will jointly choose a second team. Those two forensic teams will jointly pick a third team, and together… they will need to complete the independent forensic audit process and solve the mysteries.

Who they pick will speak volumes.

I suspect that this story will get very little attention in the national media but it has the potential to be the leak before the deluge. The Baptist again:

Nicodemus: I should never have come here

John the Baptist: All your life you’ve been asleep: “Make straight the way for the King!” He is here to awaken the world, but some will not want to waken. They’re in love with the dark. I wonder which one you will be?

The real test will be if the Governor and the state will allow the audits to be expanded statewide if what we’ve already seen revealed is confirmed.

That’s when we find out if they are in love with the dark or not.

Sanity and the U.S. Supreme Court

By Christopher Harper

At least the U.S. Supreme Court brings a bit of sanity to the otherwise chaotic state of Washington politics.

The court recently blocked a California order that restricted religious services that limited the study of the Bible. The ruling arose from a California prohibition on gatherings of people from more than three households and affected specific Bible study and prayer meetings held in a home.

“California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise,” the 5-4 majority said in the order, “permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.”

Referring to the lower appellate court that had permitted the California household restriction, the majority added, “This is the fifth time the (Supreme) Court has summarily rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise.”

Those in the majority were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett.

Thank God for the three justices appointed under Donald Trump!

But the court rankles Joe Biden, who wants to change the structure of the highest judicial body in the land. He ordered a commission to study Supreme Court changes, such as adding seats, an idea pushed by progressives in his party.

The 36-member commission is charged with completing its findings within 180 days of its first public meeting.

The White House said topics before the commission would include “the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.”

It’s somewhat ironic that one of the liberal justices on the court, Stephen Breyer, thinks the whole thing is a bad idea.

In a presentation at Harvard University, Breyer said proposals to restructure the Supreme Court could damage its reputation as an apolitical body. The court’s eldest justice at 82, Breyer said he hoped “to make those whose initial instincts may favor important structural (or other similar institutional) changes, such as forms of ‘court-packing,’ think long and hard before embodying those changes in law.”

It’s rare that I agree with Breyer, but his fellow liberals should take his message to heart.