...mainly because there's nothing going on that I want to comment about.
Sometimes I write about the NFL, so this may be a good time to write about that. Preseason is right around the corner,
and the team I follow, the Houston Texans, could be on the verge of a special season.
Of course, that all depends. It is also quite natural for this time of the year, to have an abounding optimism. Then,
if not in actuality yet, but on paper, this Houston team could be pretty good this year.
The emphasis is on "paper". When something is on "paper", it doesn't necessarily show up on the field.
The 2024 and 2025 years were like that. On "paper" the Texans were pretty strong those years too. But it didn't happen those years.
What makes this year different? Maybe everything. Maybe nothing. That's what being "on paper" means. It has to be proven
on the field. On paper, I like their moves. They solidified the weakest point on the team. They rebuilt the o-line. They've
got some "pancake" guys, who are good at delivering pancake blocks. They've got some decent depth. But there's always a "but".
The but is at right tackle, with two guys who are past their prime, and spend a lot of time on the shelf with injuries. The third guy up isn't all that good.
So things could go wrong there. Offense isn't likely their strong suit.
Defensively, the top-rated unit could be even stronger. They should be able to run the ball better. If they can improve enough that the offense doesn't lose games for them, they just might cruise to the Super Bowl with their defense and a strong supporting cast.
The defense is pretty talented and deep.
Defense and a good running game, plus an offense that takes care of the ball, is pretty hard combination to beat. That could be the kind of team that the Texans could have this year. As with all things, we shall see.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
Four square against the Marxist paradigm
7/15/26: "Four square is a phrase that the sixties hippies like to use against the Establishment of that time. I'll borrow that script, but not the rest of it. I'm definitely "four square" against Marxists of all stripes, and at all times.
7/23/21: The original post follows below:
Just saw something over at Ace that reminds me that people must be stubborn, or just plain mentally lazy, or they are not what they seem to be.
Ace referred to himself as "right". Well, for the record, yours truly is not on "the right". The term "right" is in reference to the dialectic that I mentioned just the other day. If you are going to use a dialectic, don't use that one. That dialectic is the one that the commies like to use. Therefore, if commies use it, I won't use it.
Instead, I'll use the one that Reagan set forth in the speech that launched his career. That dialectic, which he didn't name as a dialectic, is one about freedom v. tyranny, as opposed to the one about left v. right. I'll rename it as freedom v. SLAVERY.
SLAVES ARE NOT FREE. Leftist regimes ARE NOT FREE. If we set the argument up as FREEDOM VERSUS SLAVERY, then the only ones favoring SLAVERY are the leftists themselves. Those on the side of FREEDOM cannot lose. Who would, if they had the choice, choose to be a slave?
Leftists love for you to label yourselves as on the "right" because they can call you fascist, and like Hitler. It is a dumb trap to let yourselves fall into to allow that. Don't use it. Those who do aren't going to be trusted by yours truly anymore. Either there's something wrong upstairs, as in "nobody's home", or you're trying to pull something on me. I'm not going to buy anything you sell if you keep doing that.
Ronald Reagan's 1964 speech
Look for it at the 4 minute mark.
Tuesday, July 14, 2026
Secretary Rubio Warns ICC Not to Challenge U.S. Sovereign Power
CTH
Comment:
The ICC is actually committing an act of War against America. The response should be clear... Americans who align with the so-called ICC are traitors.
Comment:
The ICC is actually committing an act of War against America. The response should be clear... Americans who align with the so-called ICC are traitors.
Sunday, July 12, 2026
GAB AI discussion: comparison of USA to China
Question: Does China have a Constitution, like the USA? What distinguishes it from the one America has? How does China's government differ from America's?
GAB AI, Answer:
Yes, China operates under a written Constitution, but it functions according to fundamentally different political and theological principles than the United States Constitution.
Constitutional Foundations
- The U.S. Constitution (1787): Founded on Enlightenment principles, it was designed to limit government power through a system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and the protection of individual rights. It assumes that human nature is flawed and that authority must be restrained to prevent tyranny.
- The Chinese Constitution (1982): Reflects a Marxist-Leninist framework. It does not exist to limit government power in the Western sense but to institutionalize the governance of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It defines China as a "people's democratic dictatorship," wherein state power is centralized and exercised under the firm leadership of the Party.
Structural Differences
- Separation vs. Fusion: The U.S. relies on a tri-partite system of co-equal branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial). In China, the system is unitary and vertical; the National People's Congress is formally the "highest organ of state power," but it operates under the direction of the CCP. There is no independent judiciary; all institutions are subordinate to the Party.
- Federalism vs. Unitary Governance: The U.S. is a federal republic where states retain sovereignty and powers not delegated to the national government. China is a unitary state. While there is administrative decentralization for efficiency, provincial governments are structurally subordinate to the central government in Beijing.
- Rights Regimes: In the U.S. tradition, rights are viewed as inherent to the individual—God-given and negative (restraining the state from interference). In the Chinese model, rights are conditioned on their compatibility with the state’s developmental and ideological objectives. Stability and national unity are prioritized over individual autonomy.
Governance and Ideology
- Legitimacy: The U.S. system derives legitimacy from popular sovereignty, pluralism, and the rule of law. The Chinese system derives legitimacy from performance, national rejuvenation, and ideological coherence.
- One-Party Control: The most defining difference is that the Chinese system is explicitly designed for a one-party state. The CCP is not merely a political entity competing for power; it is the fundamental mechanism of the state. Every agency, school, and media outlet ultimately answers to the Party. In contrast, the American model—at least in its original intent—was designed for competing factions within a strictly limited sphere, preventing any single entity from achieving total, centralized control.
Effectively, the U.S. Constitution acts as a tether on the state, while the Chinese Constitution acts as the steering mechanism for the Party to direct the nation.
Further discussion:
How do judicial roles compare in both systems?
The role of the judiciary in each nation reveals the sharp divergence between a system built to limit power through the rule of law and a system built to execute the political will of a ruling party.
The United States: Judicial Independence and Adversarial Justice
In the American system, the judiciary is designed to function as an independent, co-equal branch of government.
- Checks and Balances: Under the principle of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, the courts act as a check on the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that government actions comply with the Constitution.
- Adversarial System: Criminal and civil cases are based on an adversarial process featuring prosecutors and defense attorneys. The judge acts as a neutral arbiter, ensuring procedural fairness, while a jury of peers often decides the facts.
- Tenure and Protection: Federal judges are appointed for "good behavior," which effectively means lifetime tenure. This is a deliberate protection to insulate them from political pressure, donor influence, or public fervor when they must interpret law against the interests of the state.
China: Instrumentalism and Party Subordination
In the People’s Republic of China, the judiciary (or "people's courts") is an arm of the state and the Party, explicitly designed to serve the objectives of the regime.
- Judicial Instrumentalism: There is no concept of separation of powers. The courts are accountable to the National People’s Congress and, more centrally, to the Chinese Communist Party's Political and Legal Affairs Commission. Laws are viewed as tools for social management rather than as objective constraints on authority.
- Management vs. Adjudication: Chinese judges are state employees. Their performance is often evaluated based on their ability to maintain social stability and achieve "correct" outcomes that align with current Party policy. "Judicial independence" is discarded in favor of "unified state power."
- Lack of Juries and Counsel: While China has a system of "people's assessors" who sit with judges, it is not a jury system in the Western sense of an independent body of citizens determining guilt or innocence. Furthermore, the role of defense attorneys is constrained; they are expected to work within the confines of the state's framework rather than mounting a vigorous, unchecked opposition to the prosecution.
- Unified Hierarchy: China’s court system is a strict, four-level bureaucracy (Primary, Intermediate, High, and Supreme People’s Courts). Higher courts supervise the lower courts’ work directly, ensuring that judicial decisions reflect central directives.
Key Contrast: Liberty vs. Stability
- The American Judge: The judge’s duty is to the law and the Constitution, even when those laws contradict the preferences of the current administration. The goal is to provide a forum where the rights of the citizen are protected from state overreach.
- The Chinese Judge: The judge’s duty is to ensure that the court’s rulings facilitate state authority and social order. In this system, there is no "rule of law" that stands above the "rule of the Party." If a conflict arises between an individual’s rights and the Party’s stated interest, the Party interest is, by definition, the overriding legal reality.
GAB AI, Answer:
Yes, China operates under a written Constitution, but it functions according to fundamentally different political and theological principles than the United States Constitution.
Constitutional Foundations
- The U.S. Constitution (1787): Founded on Enlightenment principles, it was designed to limit government power through a system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and the protection of individual rights. It assumes that human nature is flawed and that authority must be restrained to prevent tyranny.
- The Chinese Constitution (1982): Reflects a Marxist-Leninist framework. It does not exist to limit government power in the Western sense but to institutionalize the governance of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It defines China as a "people's democratic dictatorship," wherein state power is centralized and exercised under the firm leadership of the Party.
Structural Differences
- Separation vs. Fusion: The U.S. relies on a tri-partite system of co-equal branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial). In China, the system is unitary and vertical; the National People's Congress is formally the "highest organ of state power," but it operates under the direction of the CCP. There is no independent judiciary; all institutions are subordinate to the Party.
- Federalism vs. Unitary Governance: The U.S. is a federal republic where states retain sovereignty and powers not delegated to the national government. China is a unitary state. While there is administrative decentralization for efficiency, provincial governments are structurally subordinate to the central government in Beijing.
- Rights Regimes: In the U.S. tradition, rights are viewed as inherent to the individual—God-given and negative (restraining the state from interference). In the Chinese model, rights are conditioned on their compatibility with the state’s developmental and ideological objectives. Stability and national unity are prioritized over individual autonomy.
Governance and Ideology
- Legitimacy: The U.S. system derives legitimacy from popular sovereignty, pluralism, and the rule of law. The Chinese system derives legitimacy from performance, national rejuvenation, and ideological coherence.
- One-Party Control: The most defining difference is that the Chinese system is explicitly designed for a one-party state. The CCP is not merely a political entity competing for power; it is the fundamental mechanism of the state. Every agency, school, and media outlet ultimately answers to the Party. In contrast, the American model—at least in its original intent—was designed for competing factions within a strictly limited sphere, preventing any single entity from achieving total, centralized control.
Effectively, the U.S. Constitution acts as a tether on the state, while the Chinese Constitution acts as the steering mechanism for the Party to direct the nation.
Further discussion:
How do judicial roles compare in both systems?
The role of the judiciary in each nation reveals the sharp divergence between a system built to limit power through the rule of law and a system built to execute the political will of a ruling party.
The United States: Judicial Independence and Adversarial Justice
In the American system, the judiciary is designed to function as an independent, co-equal branch of government.
- Checks and Balances: Under the principle of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, the courts act as a check on the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that government actions comply with the Constitution.
- Adversarial System: Criminal and civil cases are based on an adversarial process featuring prosecutors and defense attorneys. The judge acts as a neutral arbiter, ensuring procedural fairness, while a jury of peers often decides the facts.
- Tenure and Protection: Federal judges are appointed for "good behavior," which effectively means lifetime tenure. This is a deliberate protection to insulate them from political pressure, donor influence, or public fervor when they must interpret law against the interests of the state.
China: Instrumentalism and Party Subordination
In the People’s Republic of China, the judiciary (or "people's courts") is an arm of the state and the Party, explicitly designed to serve the objectives of the regime.
- Judicial Instrumentalism: There is no concept of separation of powers. The courts are accountable to the National People’s Congress and, more centrally, to the Chinese Communist Party's Political and Legal Affairs Commission. Laws are viewed as tools for social management rather than as objective constraints on authority.
- Management vs. Adjudication: Chinese judges are state employees. Their performance is often evaluated based on their ability to maintain social stability and achieve "correct" outcomes that align with current Party policy. "Judicial independence" is discarded in favor of "unified state power."
- Lack of Juries and Counsel: While China has a system of "people's assessors" who sit with judges, it is not a jury system in the Western sense of an independent body of citizens determining guilt or innocence. Furthermore, the role of defense attorneys is constrained; they are expected to work within the confines of the state's framework rather than mounting a vigorous, unchecked opposition to the prosecution.
- Unified Hierarchy: China’s court system is a strict, four-level bureaucracy (Primary, Intermediate, High, and Supreme People’s Courts). Higher courts supervise the lower courts’ work directly, ensuring that judicial decisions reflect central directives.
Key Contrast: Liberty vs. Stability
- The American Judge: The judge’s duty is to the law and the Constitution, even when those laws contradict the preferences of the current administration. The goal is to provide a forum where the rights of the citizen are protected from state overreach.
- The Chinese Judge: The judge’s duty is to ensure that the court’s rulings facilitate state authority and social order. In this system, there is no "rule of law" that stands above the "rule of the Party." If a conflict arises between an individual’s rights and the Party’s stated interest, the Party interest is, by definition, the overriding legal reality.
"We're running against a system."
7/12/26:
The commies love to pretend to be what they are not. For example, they are all FOR checks and balances when they are in the minority. But once they're in the majority, they are AGAINST it. They are all FOR freedom of speech when in the minority, but are AGAINST it when they are the majority. In short, they are all FOR the traditional American way when they are in the minority, but once they are in the majority, it is a problem for them.
Make no mistake. If the Democrats say that they are for DEMOCRACY, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will sing a different tune once they are in power. That's why James Carville says not to run on what they intend to do once in power. But once in power, they WILL DO IT. Then it will be too late.
Bottom line is this: YOU CANNOT TRUST THEM WITH POWER. THEY WILL ABUSE IT.
8/30/24:
Would that system be communism?
The commies love to pretend to be what they are not. For example, they are all FOR checks and balances when they are in the minority. But once they're in the majority, they are AGAINST it. They are all FOR freedom of speech when in the minority, but are AGAINST it when they are the majority. In short, they are all FOR the traditional American way when they are in the minority, but once they are in the majority, it is a problem for them.
Make no mistake. If the Democrats say that they are for DEMOCRACY, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will sing a different tune once they are in power. That's why James Carville says not to run on what they intend to do once in power. But once in power, they WILL DO IT. Then it will be too late.
Bottom line is this: YOU CANNOT TRUST THEM WITH POWER. THEY WILL ABUSE IT.
8/30/24:
Would that system be communism?
Exactly https://t.co/mbwYFsg1ns
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2024
How to spot a communist
If a commie says he/she is a commie, you should believe them. Commies like to call themselves "progressive" or "socialist". This is just to soften their image. Make no mistake, a commie is a commie is a commie. James Carville gets into bed with commies, the he shouldn't complain about commies because that is who he likes to pal around with. If you align with commies, then you will be a commie too. Commies don't tolerate dissent, you know.
Saturday, July 11, 2026
Whatfinger calls this the Iron Strategy on Iran
The media screams "warmonger" while Trump negotiates peace. Why?
— Promethean Action (@PrometheanActn) July 11, 2026
Because the war hysteria was never about Iran — it's about killing Trump and MAGA before the midterms. @BarbaraMBoyd cuts through the psywar. 🎯 pic.twitter.com/uaf2UOsquF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)