A few points —


The fateful words “consent degree’ were uttered yesterday by USAG Merrick Garland. This occurred at a moment when he was summing up a statement in which he announced that DoJ would investigate Minneapolis searching for a “pattern” of “unconstitutional” policing, i.e. “racist” activities. If such a pattern is found – Could such a thing be? If so, then a list of “recommendations” will be produced, which if not accepted will be followed by a threat to wage an endless war of litigation using limitless DoJ lawyer time until the city is bankrupt. When the city surrenders and signs a “consent decree,” then the feds run the city. This was a favorite ply in the Obama/Holder era.

The Dems are trying to make DC a state contrary to the constitution. The only way I can understand that they will be able to do this is if SCOTUS does not insist on a constitutional amendment to effect the change. Perhaps they know something that I do not.

China Joe today proposed a 50% reduction in US carbon emissions by 2030. This would result IMO in a US SOL equivalent to that of some shithole country in Africa.

Kamala and Joe can now be clearly seen as enemies of the US.

This entry was posted in government. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to A few points —

  1. BillWade says:

    Hunter’s dad just announced his capital gains tax plan, market drops.

    Dirigibles, row boats, and bicycles are in our future.

    As covid crisis fades, climate crisis will rise. Florida is still above water though and snow still exists, wonder when Al Gore will adjust his predictions.

    • Deap says:

      We must guard against “climate fluctuations”.

      There, finally a serviceable term for any and all outcomes in the normal course of galactic transit.

      Do you think this current cold snap we are feeling even in California – warm sun but cold winds — means they already dialed the celestial levers too far in one direction?

    • PRC90 says:

      Unfortunately these people do not think in terms of economics, an immature science at best, but one rooted in human nature that they see as a mere obstacle. Instead they think in terms of utopian outcomes and find themselves having to fabricate those by force, and I do not believe that will sit well with the 80 million who voted for Trump, many of whom will decide to defend that obstacle.

    • Fasteddiez says:

      Yes, and this year, snow was present up to your eyeballs in Houston in what could be considered a 100 year or so storm. Global warming in the northeast? Ask the residents of Albany (NY, not Georgia), about the last few years. As for the warming in Antarctica, the Arctic, and Greenland, Yup.

      • Leith says:

        One to four inches ain’t exactly up to your eyeballs.

        The last big snowstorm Houston had was 125 years ago when they measured 20 inches of white stuff. But that storm also dropped snow on New Orleans, Alabama, and Tampico Mexico.

  2. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Colonel Lang,

    Clearly, this “consent decree” thing is a way station toward the bolsheviks’ desired end of “federalization” of all policing.

    Gathering into their greedy paws all powers of any consequence through the dissolution of the Constitutions and legal codes of all of the States in favor of centralized totalitarian diktat is the ultimate goal.

    Well, yes, they would preserve the merest forms of States as administrative districts which are fully answerable to the Feral Government, at least for now, until they can stand up enough – unconstititutionally mandated – “States” and their equally illegal Congressional representations to overwhelm resistance from the existing – fully legal – States, who would be from that time forward fully neutered, in order to cement rule from the totalitarian center. After that, who knows?

    Of course, as we have already seen, anticipating that the Supreme Court will disallow any unconstitutional actions cannot be relied upon (viz. TEXAS vs. PENNSYLVANIA, a clear instance of this court’s abbrogation of a central function of the Supreme Court’s role in the black letter law of the Constitution as you could possibly imagine). There is no balm in Gilead, friends, with this black-robed bunch of servile lickspittles on the bench.

    And need I even state that the cuckservatives of GOP, Inc. in Congress won’t do a damned thing. Since Senatorial appointment by the legislatures of the several States was done away with, the Senators can no longer be expected to support the agency and interests of the citizens of their States within the Federal structure. Nope, they are naught now but mercenaries, looking for the best offer, or responding to the most potent threat against the continuance of their sinecures.

    Hmm… “When in the course of human events”…

    • Deap says:

      Taking a poll – which state should we best move to, once the Nation is broken into several new sovereign entities? How can I get California weather in North Dakota? Why does living on the coast make people crazy.

      • Fasteddiez says:

        California weather in North Dakota? You must like forest fires as you’ve never seen them.

    • TV says:

      As long as most of the country continues wearing masks – sheep-like – the idea of resistance to the far left takeover is a pipe dream.

      • Tess says:

        But at least it is a starting point, most of the people meeting to “danser encore” are not wearing masks, they are defying mandatory lockdowns and curfews and mandatory distancements from people, even family members, whose breaking involve expensive fines in the best cases.

        Special Pandemic Laws are currently being passed woyjout people´s escrutiny nor consentment while we suffer the last months ( probably days ) of these dystopian measures, as this does not hold much more.
        They need the laws passed before the people becomes aware they have hijacked their rights and what was left of not only democracy but human civilization…
        France and Germany are currently submitted to harsh lockdowns and curfews.

        The people who feels strange wondering at their homes how it is possible there are no others wondering about the absurdity of all this, realize there afre many…and thus, they meet…

        This happened just today in Dresden, notice at 2:40 footage some unexpected “danseurs” arriving…


        For now, we are just dancing…from that to mass protest any arbitrariness, any fascism intent, there is only one step…
        It is not about any takeover, but recovering our lives, our freedoms, our rights…it is not a pipe dream…as it was not, notice the age of most the people…

      • exiled off mainstreet says:

        It all reminds me of a bad sci-fi movie. This is the first time that the regime has directly attacked the right to breathe. It even violates the poem associated with the Statue of Liberty, give me your tired and hungry yearning to breathe free.

  3. downtownhaiku says:

    You say:
    “The Dems are trying to make DC a state contrary to the constitution. The only way I can understand that they will be able to do this is if SCOTUS does not insist on a constitutional amendment to effect the change. Perhaps they know something that I do not.”
    The Constitution says:

    “Section 3

    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

    My view:
    Only thirteen states ratified the Constitution pursuant to Article VII. All of the remaining thirty-seven states were subsequently admitted to the Union by Congress pursuant to this power.

    • Pat Lang says:


      With the exception of West Virginia all these new states were created from territory willingly given up either by existing states or unincorporated US territory. DC is specifically described in the constitution as being the federal capital district and NOT part of a state.

      • Deap says:

        Agree, who can create a new state out of a federal district belonging only to the “people”.

        What was the wisdom siting our seat of government outside the interests of any of the several states. Was the intent perpetual neutrality to co-exist with the seat of the US government?

        Time to take a look at the Federalist papers. I side with the need for a neutral district subject only to the federal dominion.

        But having lived in Wash DC for a number of years , its civic “governance was abominable – making it a “state” will not solve that deep dysfunction. But also as our nation’s capitol city, it is for the most part a total disgrace of neglect and federal management.

        DC needs more oversight from the Executive Office and channel more Lady Bird Johnson – it is not a shining city on a hill. It could be, it should be, but much of it is a failed state, while some of it is indeed the loveliest expression of our national pride. Every year we need to add 10% more into the national pride column.

  4. akaPatience says:

    That the corrupt, self-enriching pol Ilan Omar has been elected to Congress TWICE to represent the city of Minneapolis and surrounding environs tells me a majority of the residents won’t care if the feds control their city. I could be wrong but they may figure in some ways they’ll ultimately burden US taxpayers more and Minneapolis taxpayers less.

    I have relatives who live in the city now but have the feeling there is – and will continue to be – an exodus of middle class and affluent people that they’ll join before long if events like we’ve seen this past year keep up. It’s sad to see more once-great cities decline in the wake of “progressive” (what a joke) political dominance. Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, etc., etc. SMH…

    • Pat Lang says:


      The method will be widely applied.

    • Deap says:

      Do you suppose Omar is more used to living under a Sharia Law system of justice – hands cut off, public hangings and stonings?

      She has not turned her back the Sharia civil code as it pertains to her own marriages and divorces Maybe that is her quibble with the US system of justice. Does she want it replaced with Sharia Law? It is more immediate, direct and swift.

  5. The Twisted Genius says:

    The Constitution authorizes the establishment of a federal district not to exceed 10 miles square with Congress having exclusive jurisdiction over that district in “all cases whatsoever.” The proposed federal district would certainly not exceed ten square miles and would be small enough to have Congress truly exercise exclusive jurisdiction without the inconvenience of near 700,000 residents. The only hang up I see is if there are any residents of the that new federal district. I don’t know if any residential buildings are included in the much reduced federal district, but would those few residents of the federal district still have DC’s current electoral votes as specified in the 23d Amendment? And would that be in addition to the electoral votes of the new state of Douglass Commonwealth? I think that’s the biggest question for Congress and the SC to decide.

    • Pat Lang says:

      Yes but does the constitution give the congress the power to abolish the district so prescribed in favor of a state.

      • The Twisted Genius says:

        Congress established the the general area of the future DC in 1790 and its exact boundaries in 1801. Congress changed the boundaries once already with the 1846 Retrocession Act. I see no constitutional reason why Congress can’t change the boundaries again. The remaining federal territory outside of the reduced federal district can either go back to Maryland or be admitted as the state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. What Congress is constitutionally proscribed from doing is admitting that territory as a new state if it is first given back to Maryland.

        • Pat Lang says:

          If the federal district is much reduced IMO there should be no residences in it. The rub here of course is in senate representation. In the 1840s-50s a balance was sought. Some fly speck in the Pacific would suffice.

          • The Twisted Genius says:

            Yes, that’s the only real rub. It would inevitably mean two more Democratic senators, but that’s only if the Republicans think electing more Republican senators is futile. Surely they can appeal to more voters if they put their minds to it.

          • Pat Lang says:

            So you think that DC could elect Republicans? Really? Surely you know that ignorant people will vote for anyone who gives them a handout.

          • The Twisted Genius says:

            I doubt DC would elect Republicans unless the party became much more inclusive, more like the big tent days of long ago. There are plenty of states which could easily elect Republicans other than DC. I can see the Virginia Democrats getting too cocky and doing something stupid. Then the voters would turn to the Republicans to right the ship of state.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        Hopefully, the case goes to SCOTUS and takes long enough to be heard that by that time congress has changed hands and the whole idea dies on the vine; heard or not heard.

    • Fred says:


      I would say that home rule has failed. D.C. is little more than a city-state weilding undue influence on the conduct of the federal government and the 23rd Amendment should go the same way as 18th. We shouldn’t allow private residences for citizenship purposes inside the Federal District.

      • The Twisted Genius says:

        “We shouldn’t allow private residences for citizenship purposes inside the Federal District.”

        I totally agree, Fred. I can imagine the Trump clan moving into the much reduced federal district to dominate the electoral vote and congressional “representation” afforded by the 23d Amendment. It would be the Free State of Trump. It would be a great idea for a sitcom or a new reality show.

        • Fred says:

          While a nice idea for a sitcom, there wouldn’t be any electoral votes from the restored district.

          • The Twisted Genius says:

            The Washington DC statehood bill can’t rescind the 23d Amendment by itself, but it does call for rescinding it. Until that happens, the three electoral votes remain in place. The bill does abolish the delegate to the House of Representatives.

          • Fred says:


            I was speaking of rescinding the amendment altogether.

  6. jerseycityjoan says:

    I don’t believe DC should be a state either. The land that came from Maryland could go back to Maryland, like the land that came from Virginia went back to Virginia in the 1800s. I don’t know if Maryland’s consent would be required for that, though. But the designated capital area has to stay as is unless there’s a constitutional amendment.

    If we start having city-states then New York City and maybe Long Island along with it would be obvious new state. Where would all of this end?

    The House passed a bill on this. There was a lot of talk about racism and the various things DC doesn’t have that other states do. The new state would be divided into two parts: a separate “federal enclave” and Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.

    “Rep. Andy Harris, a Republican from Maryland, said that turning D.C. into a state wasn’t what his state intended.

    ‘This is Maryland’s land we’re talking about. How dare the Congress take Maryland’s land from it,’ he said on the House floor.”


  7. Fourth and Long says:

    On Uncle Joe’s climate initiatives there’s no cause to worry or hope – here, verbatim, are pearls of his wisdom offered up at his world Zoom-fest climate summit. Parse away:

    “Those dollars—those dollars being invested are often the hard-earned savings of our workers—pensions. We can’t take steps to protect our workers if we don’t step up. We have to be able to move forward from the downside deal, then into the upside, and strengthen the resilience of our financial system. I have directed my team to develop an approach to do exactly that.”

  8. PRC90 says:

    I can understand the Progressive Fed government trying to take over some cities or even States by that method, where they believe that can run it long enough to install their own local sympathizers. However, what is to stop a threatened but determined city or even State political leadership from giving all local Federal buildings and facilities a one week deadline to provide their own water, power and communications, then forcefully preventing re-connection ? Essentially, ‘come and stop us’.
    I suggest that the Democrats and their sponsors national attempt at reorganising the division of the cake has gone too far to prevent regional revolts of some scale, and events as I have described would be seen as a productive first commitment. Where it would lead to would be indeterminate at the start.

    • Fred says:


      “they believe that can run it long enough to install their own local sympathizers. ”

      Has it escaped your notice that these consent decrees are almost entirely in jurisdictions run by Democrats? They wouldn’t have consent otherwise. The local leadership, by adhering to and leading by the lefty ideology, set the stage for such disastrous outcomes – which are then claimed only to be solvable by federal power, provided they run the federal government.

      • PRC90 says:

        Consent decrees intended to finalize civil rights investigations or lawfare so far seem to be directed towards Police ‘reform’ with local Democrat assistance. There is nothing per se to stop the DOJ from using alleged civil rights violations by State or city administrations other than LE, to apply pressure to them in the same way. Sure, it would need a complainant but how hard would that be.
        This could be applied to any kind of administration that DOJ, ie., the Fed Democrat apparatus, thinks may fold up and accept some kind of a deal. All it would take would be additional DOJ lawyers to develop this new ground.

  9. Deap says:

    Totally off topic but needs to be put into discussion in our increasingly troubled times, particularly if Democrats create their permanent majority, by hook, crook or stealth:

    Mass shooters share the experience of absent fathers, in case a new Democrat majority wants to ignore this common denominator and confiscate all guns instead:


    The irony being it is the strong father figure who most likely teaches his sons about responsible gun ownership. Democrats inducement and celebration of solo parent families was a first step off the cliff and into our current culture of violence crisis.

  10. TV says:

    “Kamala and Joe can now be clearly seen as enemies of the US.”
    The Democrat-media party has been an enemy of the US for a long time.
    They kept it barely a secret until Trump’s election exploded their little heads and the mask finally fell off.
    Now they make no attempt to hide it and the uninformed, badly educated, immature population does. not. care.
    You can be an American or a Democrat, you can’t be both.

  11. Ed Lindgren says:

    For those who missed Dementia Joe’s calling out the Navajo Nation during the Climate Summit for not letting First Lady Dr. Jill (PhD Education) return home, here it is:


    Recommend viewing the entire clip, but Joe’s comments IRT Jill begin at time hack 1:46.

    Just another Joe Biden moment………..I fear there will be many more before we are rid of him.

    • Deap says:

      Maybe Dr Jill is learning Navaho Code Talk so she can start translating her husband for the rest of us. I never suspected “the return to decency”would be so cringe-worthy.

      50-50 — Keep Joe so we don’t get Kamala. Or ditch Joe and get Kamala.
      Adult life decisions are hard.

Comments are closed.