A nice new batch of CtC victories; why Biden’s mandate is both wrong and illegal (plus more comments on current events); and the remedy to being ‘On Track for Calamitous Policy Outcomes’

Fear nothing but God’s judgment as to your honesty and your courage


“It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

-Samuel Adams

HEY, People! Please don’t just read what I post here (or anywhere), and nod your head sagely or approvingly and then move on to other things. I don’t post in order to affirm your sense of things. I post in order to equip you with perspectives and arguments with which to educate others, and in the expectation that you will forward my posts to other people (or direct them to those posts). PLEASE do those things.

We won’t win by YOU knowing what I present. We will win by LOTS OF OTHERS knowing what I present.

And The Hits Just Keep On Comin’!

New victories in enforcing the rule of law– including a nice win over a typically-bogus IRS Notice Of Deficiency.

FOR SOME TIME NOW my focus has been on the deconstruction of the American Experiment under the pretext of the “everything-is-different-now” media-made hoax of a dire pandemic from which there is no safety except in abject subordination to the notions and decrees of those running the state. I’ve been only occasionally posting victories on the tax front for celebration by the community.

That easing of focus on the “tax” aspect of the CtC message and the shift of attention to the “rule of law” part has no real downside. 18 unbroken years of victories and the sporadic deployment of lame pretenses of tax agency resistance to the CtC-revealed truth over the same 18 years have made the continuing presentation of more examples of either one unnecessary for the proving of any point.

BUT STILL, while the immediate threat of the C19 coup to all our well-being is of more immediate import, the happy victories by CtC warriors on the tax front offer great opportunities for uplift in otherwise pretty dark times. So, let’s enjoy a bunch of those victories this week, and take our hats off to the heroes!

We’ll start with…

Mattea Bittner

MATTEA BITTNER, excellent daughter of the excellent parents Kiki Bittner and husband (see videos here and here), has secured a complete refund from the feds of everything withheld from her against the possibility that any of her economic activities were taxable– with interest:

Here is the return which led to this fine victory on behalf of the rule of law.


Brian Farmer

BRIAN FARMER has secured a nice victory reclaiming everything withheld from him and given over to Ohio during 2020:

Here is the return producing this victory (with Brian’s 4852s attached to show the withheld amounts, although they were not included with the filing, nor was the requested ‘Schedule of Ohio Withholding’, a new provision which Brian overlooked).

BTW, Brian says that the reason the amount on this refund check is slightly smaller than the amount claimed on his return is due to Ohio not being able to grasp his explanation that $30 of what had been withheld from him during the year had mistakenly been sent to an inapplicable local tax jurisdiction by the withholder after flagging the return over the discrepancy. The state recalculated the claim omitting the $30 (but adding interest to the amount of withholding it acknowledged due to the processing delay).


Timothy Bell

TIMOTHY BELL shares his three latest victories, starting with his complete refund from the feds of all withholding during 2020, plus interest:

Here is the return which produced this complete refund.

Then there are these two from Virginia, the first for 2019:


…pursuant to this return, plus interest (but with $476 held back by the state against Timothy’s 2020 Virginia claim, which the state had been holding back on awaiting his submission of the federal acknowledgment only just received…);

…and the next for 2016:

…pursuant to this amended return, plus interest, and after going through a few variably-corrupt hoops presented by the state.


Michael V. Johnson

MICHAEL JOHNSON shares his latest victory– a just-received federal refund of amounts withheld during 2018, plus interest:

Here is the amended return that produced this victory for the rule of law.


Gabriella Cardenas

GABRIELLA CARDENAS, excellent granddaughter of the excellent David & Valerie Denning, shares her debut victory– a complete refund from the feds of everything claimed of what was withheld from her in 2020, plus interest:

Here is the return by which Gabriella achieved this win. (The careful eye familiar with the special provisions regarding COVID Relief Package unemployment in 2020 will note some mistakes made in computing this one, and there’s an error in the amount of withholding reported here, too. But according to my fairly careful eye, after the mistakes are all rectified Gabriella will have another $396 coming back to her– plus interest, which will be posted at that time.)


Piotr & Stephanie Bondaryk

NOW LET’S ENJOY THE NICE VICTORY LAST MONTH by Piotr and Stephanie Bondaryk over a spurious IRS “Notice of Deficiency” alleging a big tax and penalties liability concerning 2017. As will be seen, when Pitor and Stephanie confidently and resolutely stood their ground, the bogus allegations melted away.

The story began when the Bondaryks received this CP2000 “Proposed Changes” notice alleging shortfalls in their 2017 return– which had already been accepted, processed, and refunded in full (as can be seen on this page):

Piotr and Stephanie responded within a few weeks with this pointed refusal to play along. The IRS then sent a “we need time to think about what to do now” letter.

The delay letter was followed, a bit past the 60 days for which the agency had asked, with another letter. This one declared that “the information we have received was not sufficient for us to change our determination [on the basis of which the “change” proposal had been made]”, and went on to tell Piotr and Stephanie to expect a “Statutory Notice of Deficiency” within 3 or 4 weeks. 11 days later, that notice arrived:

Confident in their CtC-educated knowledge of the tax and the law– and resolute in their respect for the latter, even in the face of its “official” enemies– on April 15, 2020, Piotr and Stephanie again expressed their dispute with the now more-formalized false allegations of liabilities by which the IRS hoped to reverse its original and inconvenient loss of revenue to the couple’s proper claim of refund.

Months went by, until August 20 of 2020, when the IRS sent its next letter. This one acknowledged receipt of the Bondaryk’s last response to the paper assault, warned them that the now-long-since expired deadline for petitioning Tax Court was not extended by their response, and told the couple that the agency needed another 60 days to ruminate on its conundrum of having targeted its nonsense at well-educated real Americans who simply would not back down.

Piotr and Stephanie promptly slapped the agency sharply, with this. Two months later the IRS replied– but not to Piotr and Stephanie’s most recent broadside. This latest agency letter purported to reply once again to the April 15 response Piotr and Stephanie had made to the “Notice of Deficiency”, but this time specifically challenging the rebuttal of a payor’s “wage” allegations which is included in the couple’s return.

Piotr and Stephanie replied to that challenge of their “wage” rebuttal on February 3, 2021, with this specific restatement/clarification of their return testimony. The next thing to arrive from the IRS was a double-down on the scare notices:

However… when a few more months had gone by WITHOUT “payment [being] received immediately”, the tax agency threw in the towel. On June 10, 2021, it sent this letter acknowledging Piotr and Stephanie’s February 3 response and saying, “we need 90 days” to “process all your information”. About 9 weeks later came this surrender notice:

Here is an account transcript from the agency reporting more-or-less all of this sordid little story.

CONGRATULATIONS to Piotr and Stephanie! They’ve stood tall for the rule of law, in the snarling face of a junk-yard dog.

And while we’re in the congratulatory mode for this good couple, let’s mention two additional complete refunds Piotr & Stephanie have secured which have not been previously posted– federal and California for 2018:

Here is the filing that secured this federal refund;

…and here is the California return.


FINALLY, LET’S ENJOY this great video by Dr. Chris Wendell, in which Chris shares the story of his first CtC-educated victory (which was posted on this page here, in June):

SO, HATS OFF to Mattea, Brian, Timothy, Michael, Gabriella, Piotr & Stephanie, and Chris! Their great victories join those of the tens of thousands of other awakened and activated Americans represented here. Each constitutes another critical step toward the restoration of the Founders republic and the true rule of law.

Don’t you wish your victories were proudly posted, too?

It’s easy. Stand up on behalf of the law, and then share the evidence.

That’s all there is to it!

BTW, DON’T YOU WISH YOUR INSPIRING BEING-THE-STORM VIDEO was posted, too, like Chris’s and David Dennings, and Brian Farmer’s and Kiki Bittner’s and all those others you can enjoy here? This is easy to do, and very important (plus it can get you some great LHC swag!). See (and carefully read in their entirety) these guidelines and encouragements.

Remember, it’s all about upholding the law, and that is YOUR responsibility. Awakening others to this high and honorable duty is the best way to make it happen.

“It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”

-United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

“Like a muddied stream or a polluted fountain is the righteous man who gives way before the wicked.”

-Proverbs 25:26

“I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do.”

-Everett Hale

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them, and these will continue till they have been resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress.”

-Frederick Douglass

“A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves.”

-Edward R. Murrow

Be the change you want to see in the world.”

-Mohandas Gandhi

CARE TO COMMENT on this article (which is permalinked at this address)? Click here.

Set a brushfire– E-mail this article to a friend

Return to contents


Tools For Leveraging The CtC Superpower

You’ve got magic in your hands, if you will use it…


A Few Comments– Nuclear And Otherwise– On Selected Current Events

Just the low-hanging fruit, you understand– Fauci’s outing as responsible for C19’s development; Biden’s fascist mandate; the Texas abortion law; and a few other topics– including a look at my recent antibody test results. There are only so many hours in the day, after all.

ANTHONY FAUCI has been outed even further as a major perp in the creation of C19 this week (by docs secured through a FOIA suit by The Intercept, here and here). Right out of the gate, useful Republican idiots and Fauci’s “plandemic” co-conspirators are trying to make China the villain responsible for the origin of C19 and give Fauci and other US malfeasants a pass. Don’t let this happen.

Likewise, even where the issue of identifying the culpable parties is left out of the calculus, those trying to spin the origin question are trying hard to keep the spectrum of possibilities confined to natural animal human transmission or a lab leak. Don’t let this spectrum get locked into place. Another possibility remains that the virus– whether found as is or enhanced with gain-of-function manipulation in the lab– was deliberately introduced into human circulation.

Don’t be shocked at the thought, and don’t be naive. A lot of very powerful people in governments and in commerce have been enormously benefitted by the pandemic. Many people looking at the kind of gains that have been realized, both in power and wealth– and especially the kind of people who naturally rise to the positions of those who have benefited— will do literally anything to secure those gains.

Consider: The sort of folks of whom we are speaking have– in your lifetime– sent and/or plumped for the sending of thousands of American men (and even some women) to their deaths, and scores of thousands into lifetimes of disability. These things have been dome in furtherance of missions to kill at least hundreds of thousands of non-Americans in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and more.

These same folks financed and facilitated the killing of more in Yemen, Ukraine, Georgia, Iran, and many other places. And all of this has been done simply in service to the perpetrator’s ideological or commercial interests. Why on earth would you imagine that such folks would stick at seeing to the killing of a bunch of strangers in order to make the world more to their liking (a change they may even tell their egomaniacal and sociopathic selves would be for everyone’s benefit– at least, the benefit of those who would be left alive when the dust settled)?

“There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men.”

-Edmund Burke

Let’s not forget, as well, that preparations were apparently made for the exploitation of the “pandemic” well before C19 officially appeared on the scene. There was the notorious “Event 201”, for instance (discussed here, in the context of a push for “vaccine passports” in Europe dating back to 2018). There was the networking (or better, web-spinning) groundwork on behalf of “The Great Reset“. There were the preliminary legal actions put in place by Democratic operatives prior to C19’s official appearance which were designed to capitalize on an apparently presciently anticipated unprecedented massive interest in mail-in ballots, as discussed and documented here and here.

Now, all of this may have just been a series of remarkable coincidences, of course. But maybe not, too. Re-read Burke’s admonition, above, and keep your mind, and the spectrum of public discourse, wide open.


SPEAKING OF THE REVELATIONS of Anthony Fauci’s culpability in the yelling of “pandemic” in a crowded theater, I find it a suspicious coincidence that within days of The Intercept’s dangerously attention-focusing exposé being published that the Sundowner-in-Chief (h/t to Matt Taibi for the bon mot) announced the immensely-distracting proposition of “vaccine” mandates. Maybe I’m just overly cynical…

Of course, that “vaccine mandate” deserves  a few focused words here, too.

Let’s start with a very brief recap of why there is no credible rationale for pushing the “vaccine”, each point of which also establishes the illegality of coerced medical treatments in this case:

  • There are several effective treatments for C19– specifically, hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin/zinc (see here, here and here) and Ivermectin (discussed here and in another topic item below). Both have been thoroughly-proven in widespread application throughout the world (including in the USA) over the last 18 months. That “vaccine”-mongers have conspired to suppress knowledge of these treatments in the general population and have prevented the FDA from “approving” them for use in C19 cases doesn’t change the facts one iota.

  • Because there are effective treatments available, in addition to there being no rationale for endless pushing of the “vaccines” on the disinterested, there is also no valid compelling government interest that could make legal the extraordinary and extremely liberty-violating “remedy” of coerced injections of biochemical agents into anyone.

  • Further, it is now well-established that the “vaccines” don’t prevent anyone from becoming infected and don’t prevent any such infected person from transmitting the virus (see this and this). Thus, no credible government interest (in “public health” or otherwise) can be served by forcing them on anyone.

  • Conversely, if it is argued– for the sake of face-saving, and despite the evidence to the contrary– that the “vaccines” DO prevent a recipient from becoming infected, then no compelling interest can be argued for making anyone be injected for the protection of anyone else. If the “vaccines” offer that kind of protection, then that other person can become protected by simply taking the injection him- or herself. The fears of one person, who can act unilaterally to protect him-or herself, can’t justify an invasion of someone else’s rights.

LET’S ALSO TALK about those fears of C19. Unlike smallpox (the disease involved in the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case to which many enthused about violating the rights of millions of people in order to quell their own delusional fears), which has an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 30%, C19 has an IFR which averages around 0.15%.

By itself, that tiny 0.15% threat figure fails to rise anywhere near a number capable of rationally justifying the invasion of single person’s body, much less those of millions. But the threat level is even further qualified downward by additional factors.

For instance, other than those of people already over the average ages of mortality, almost all the fatalities involved in that 0.15% IFR for C19 occur because of exacerbating conditions which are themselves already fatal threats to their victims (see this and this). In regard to those exacerbating conditions (comorbidities), ANY respiratory illness, even so little as the common cold, is as likely to cause death as is an infection with C19.

Those victims making up the 0.15% IFR for C19 not falling in the categories described above serve even more poorly to justify “vaccine” mandates. Those in that cohort have inflicted fatal vulnerability upon themselves, through their own bad behaviors, such as by becoming obese or profoundly unhealthy in other ways. The solution to such problems is obviously the responsibility of those responsible in each case, and none of them are a proper cause for violating the rights and bodily integrity of others.

OKAY, ALL OF THE FOREGOING POINTS stand on their own as legal strikes against Biden’s fascist “vaccine” mandates. In particular they each stand strongly against any attempt to rely on the deeply-flawed Jacobson ruling in its defense.

But there are other strikes against this proposed crime which, although more challenging to the modern, deeply-conditioned typical American perspective, offer correspondingly greater benefits for being aired and argued. And right now may be the singular time in which that airing and arguing has its best chance of dramatic success due to the viscerally-glaring impropriety of Biden’s plan.

You see, Biden and his co-conspirators rely for the mandate’s legal authority on an “Emergency temporary standards” provision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (as amended). It can be observed, of course, that requiring individuals to accept the irreversible injection of an unwanted biochemical concoction or face economic ruin, or requiring business owners to impose such a requirement or be economically ruined themselves can hardly qualify under a “temporary remedy” provision. But that’s just the least of the problems with this OSHA reliance.

The fact is, OSHA is grounded in the Constitutional delegation of authority to “regulate commerce among the several states” (provided in the Commerce Clause). That delegation has been treated by the courts as conveying virtually unlimited Congressional authority over anything NOT actually involved or engaged in commerce among the several states but which Congress creatively pretends to have an “effect” on such commerce (the regulation of which is therefore– goes the pretense– an element of regulating such commerce).

But that expansive treatment of the “commerce” regulatory authority has only taken place since 1937, when FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court unless it began seeing things in this bent way. That is because it is an invalid construction.

Prior to the court-packing threat and SCOTUS’s craven prostration, 150 years of American lawmaking and jurisprudence had seen not a glimmer of any such manifestly unconstitutional pretense about the Commerce Clause. And no surprise, considering its obvious inherent disharmony with myriad actual provisions of the Constitution.

To help cement this point, let me share with you a portion of a post from a few years ago in which I quote a Supreme Court ruling from 1936 which sternly decimates that expansive “interpretation” of the Commerce Clause authority so institutionalized today, and upon which Biden’s “vaccine” mandate relies:

U.S. Supreme Court Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)



1. A stockholder may maintain a bill to enjoin the corporation and its directors from submitting to legislative exactions and regulations which are unconstitutional and would seriously injure the business of the corporation. P. 298 U. S. 286.

2. Where irreparable injury from unconstitutional legislation is certain and imminent, suit for an injunction need not be deferred until injury has been actually inflicted. P. 298 U. S. 287.

3. [A 176-word description of the “Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935”– the legislative scheme being struck down– which I am omitting due to its lengthy irrelevance to my point here.]


(1) That a so-called excise tax, imposed by the Act, of 15% of the sale price or market value at the mine of all bituminous coal produced in the country, subject to a draw-back of 13 1/2% allowed to those producers who submit to the price-fixing and labor, provisions of the Act, is not a tax, but a penalty to coerce submission, and cannot be upheld as an expression of the taxing power.

(2) The provisions of the Act looking to the control of the wages, hours, and working conditions of the miners engaged in the production of coal, and seeking to guarantee their right of collective bargaining in these matters, are beyond the powers of Congress, because —

(a) The Constitution grants to Congress no general power to regulate for the promotion of the general welfare.

(b) The power expressly granted Congress to regulate interstate commerce does not include the power to control the conditions in which coal is produced before it becomes an article of commerce.

(c) The effect on interstate commerce in the coal of labor conditions involved in its production, including disputes and strikes over wages, etc., is an indirect effect.

(3) Since a mine owner, by refusing to accept the regulatory provisions, would incur a prohibitive tax and be deprived, by other provisions of the Act, of the right to sell coal to the United States or to any of its contractors for use in performing their contracts, the regulations are, in fact, compulsory. In view of this compulsion, provisions of the Act seeking to authorize part of the producers and miners to fix hours for the entire industry, and part of the producers and miners in the districts to fix minimum wages in their districts, are legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form, and clearly violate the Fifth Amendment.

(4) The price-fixing provisions are not separable from the provisions concerning labor, and therefore cannot stand independently. They are so related to and dependent upon the labor provisions, as conditions, considerations or compensations, as to make it clearly probable that, the latter being held bad, the former would not have been passed.

(5) The constitutionality of the price-fixing provisions is not considered.

4. Whether the end sought to be attained by an Act of Congress is legitimate is wholly a matter of constitutional power, and not at all of legislative discretion. Beneficent aims, however great or well directed, can never serve in lieu of power.

5. To a constitutional end, many ways are open; but to an end not within the terms of the Constitution, all ways are closed.

6. The proposition, often advanced and as often discredited, that the power of the federal government inherently extends to all purposes affecting the Nation as a whole with which the States severally cannot deal, or deal adequately, and the related notion that Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have always been definitely rejected by this Court.

7. Those who framed and those who adopted the Constitution meant to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the States only such portions as it was thought wise to confer upon the federal government, and, in order that there should be no uncertainty as to what was taken and what was left, the national powers of legislation were not aggregated, but enumerated — with the result that what was not embraced by the enumeration remained vested in the States without change or impairment.

8. The States, in respect of all powers reserved to them, are supreme. And since every addition to the national legislative power to some extent detracts from or invades the power of the States, it is of vital moment that, in order to preserve the fixed balance intended by the Constitution, the powers of the general government be not so extended as to embrace any not within the express terms of the several grants or the implications necessarily to be drawn therefrom.

9. The general government possesses no inherent power over the internal affairs of the States, and emphatically not with regard to legislation.

10. The determination of the Framers Convention and the ratifying conventions to preserve complete and unimpaired state self-government in all matters not committed to the national government is one of the plainest facts in the history of their deliberations. Adherence to that determination is incumbent equally upon the federal government and the States. State powers can neither be appropriated, on the one hand, nor abdicated, on the other.

11. If the federal government once begins taking over the powers of the States, the States may be so despoiled of their powers, or — what may amount to the same thing — be so relieved of the responsibilities which the possession of the powers necessarily enjoins, as to reduce them to little more than geographical divisions of the national domain.

12. The Constitution is a law — the supreme law of the land. Judicial tribunals are required to apply the law to the facts in every case properly brought before them, and, in so doing, they are bound to give effect to this supreme law as against any mere statute conflicting with it.

13. In the discharge of that duty, the opinion of the lawmakers that a statute passed by them is valid must be given great weight; but their opinion, or the court’s opinion, that the statute will prove greatly or generally beneficial is wholly irrelevant to the inquiry.

14. As used in the commerce clause of the Constitution, the term “commerce” is the equivalent of intercourse for the purposes of trade, and includes transportation, purchase, sale and exchange of commodities between citizens of the different States. The power to regulate commerce embraces the instruments by which commerce is carried on.

15. Production and manufacture of commodities are not commerce, even when done with intent to sell or transport the commodities out of the State.

16. The possibility or even certainty of the exportation of a product or an article from a State does not put it in interstate commerce before it has begun to move from the State. To hold otherwise would be to nationalize all industries.

17. One who produces or manufactures a commodity, subsequently sold and shipped by him in interstate commerce, whether such sale and shipment were originally intended or not, has engaged in two distinct and separate activities. So far as he produces or manufactures it, his business is purely local. So far as he sells or ships it, or contracts to do so, to customers in another State, he engages in interstate commerce. In respect of the former, he is subject to regulation by the State; in respect of the latter, to regulation only by the federal government. Production is not commerce, but a step in preparation for commerce.

18. The incidents leading up to and culminating in the mining of coal — the employment of men, the fixing of their wages, hours of labor and working conditions, the bargaining in respect of these things — each and all constitute intercourse for the purposes of production, not of trade. Commerce in the coal is not brought into being by force of these purely local activities, but by negotiations, agreements and circumstances entirely apart from production. Mining brings the subject matter of commerce into existence; commerce disposes of it.

19. To say that an activity or condition has a “direct” effect upon commerce implies that it operates proximately — not mediately, remotely, or collaterally — to produce the effect, without the presence of any efficient intervening agency or condition.

20. The distinction between a direct and an indirect effect upon interstate commerce is independent of the magnitude of the effect or of its cause.

21. The evils which come to interstate commerce from struggles between employer and employees over the matter of wages, working conditions, the right of collective bargaining, etc., and the resulting strikes, curtailment and irregularity of production and effect on prices, however extensive such evils may be, affect interstate commerce in a secondary and indirect way; they are local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control.

22. The want of power in the federal government is the same whether the wages, hours of service, and working conditions and the bargaining about them, are related to production before interstate commerce has begun, or to sale and distribution after it has ended. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495.

23. A declaration in a statute that invalidity of any of its provisions shall not affect the others reverses the presumption of inseparability, but it does not alter the rule that, if one of two mutually dependent parts be unconstitutional, the other cannot be upheld.

That sounds like it was written in a different country, doesn’t it?

That’s the “originalist” take on the Constitution, and how it was understood and enforced (with only occasional stumbles) from 1789– really, from the adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1781– until the late 1930s. But after decades of Kool-Aid expressly and insidiously concocted to erode this original (and frankly, obvious) understanding of the Constitution, and treat the “United States” referenced in federal statutes as being the all-inclusive, all-powerful thing the Supreme Court says above that it is not, we are now a long way down the path into foreign parts.

So, I imagine my point is now obvious– Biden HAS no actual authority under OSHA for his “vaccine” mandate. A vigorous resistance by all good-hearted Americans to this pernicious assault on our liberties and the very concept of a rational rule of law should help today’s Supreme Court– equipped with a lately-rare collection of enough justices likely to see these legal issues correctly, and to recognize the significance and fleeting character of the window of opportunity before them, might result in a proper decision there on the “mandate” thing, with long coattails of virtue trailing behind it.

HOWEVER… in my very sober and seriously-offered opinion, no one should wait on, or rely on, any ruling from any court as the measure of the proper response to this “mandate” outrage. Biden and his handlers have taken a step too far, and whether a court says so or not, it cannot be tolerated.

I will leave it to each reader to find his or her way to the implications of that viewpoint.

I will also share the observations by the now very serious-minded satirist J.P. Sears in the video below, which go nicely to the point. And I will BEG you all to share the post above (the link is https://losthorizons.com/N/162.htm#2) with EVERYONE you can.

I know lots of folks have been posting lots of things responding to Biden’s attack, many rich with apt dudgeon and strong and sometimes well-reasoned words. But though it pains me to say it myself, none will be as useful to the cause as what I have said here.

NOTE: For some further observations concerning the Commerce Clause authority (and its misuse over the last 84 years), see ‘The Mouse That’s Roaring’ and ‘Even Solitary Candles, Once Lit, Can Roll Back The Darkness’ from the collection, Upholding the Law and Other Observations.


Even after the hammer-drop above, there are still a few things to say on some other related and not-so-related topics, so…

H/T TO PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS for posting this graphic (with the apt comment, “I suppose Fauci will say Ivermectin only works for blacks…”):


Remember, a big part of the plandemic is the pretense that there are no treatments for C19, so you will conclude that your only choices are death or the “vaccine”– and compliance with lawless autocratic decrees. The object is the gain of power for some, and for others of money… and, of course, to get a so-called “vaccine” into your body for as yet unknown reasons.

Everyone involved in the fear-mongering, the lies about treatments and the seizures of power– and all the death and destruction that resulted– should face strict accountability.

BTW, these data modeled in the graphic above thoroughly mirrors, supports and updates with more current fatality data observations that I posted about the use of hydroxychloroquine in Africa and Papua New Guinea, here, almost a year ago…

Maybe seeing that will help encourage people to carefully read and diligently share the rest of my posts on the subject of C19, starting with the broad overview here.


IMAGINING THAT SOME may be interested (since most have likely never seen one of these, and they may soon become important in some circumstances), here is an image of my recent C19 antibody test, taken about four weeks after my infection became apparent, as discussed here:

BTW, after hanging on ’til the end of August, the sinus infection that annoyingly accompanied my C19 event faded away. My sense of smell is slowly returning now, too, thank goodness.


FINALLY, LET’S SHIFT ATTENTION to the Texas anti-abortion bill that has lately been causing a stir in certain quarters. I will first say, “Well done, Texas!” For the moment the law appears to be having its intended effect, and some number of children are alive today who wouldn’t have been without this very creatively-designed solution to the noxious practice.

That said, it must be recognized that every possible equally-creative legal assault will be made on the new law. Until all of those assaults have run their course, the durability of the law will be very much in question.

With adverse challenge outcomes possible from what are, after all, likely to be hostile courts, and in order to equip other state legislatures with another very solid, very difficult to attack alternative approach to curing the abortion epidemic, I offer the argument from principle and the practical implementation outline to be found in this paper (as presented in my second book, ‘Upholding the Law and Other Observations’). Please read it and share it.

CARE TO COMMENT on this article (which is permalinked at this address)? Click here.

Spread the love

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.