Posted On: Wednesday - June 3rd 2026 7:38PM MST
In Topics: Immigration Stupidity US Police State Pundits Liberty/Libertarianism US Feral Government ctrl-left Socialism/Communism
I was about to insert "On the old ..." into the title, but the situation has changed in this country since one might have discussed this 40 years ago. The answer is not old.
The principled, but sometimes just practical, point is often made that, if "our side" - and we are really on "sides" now - does one thing that may be violating our principles of rule-of-law-not-men or basic ideas of liberty, the other side would use it against us. They would be justified in using it against us even, because, well, we did it, so, in fairness... Or even if it's not justified, perhaps what we have enabled can and will be used against us, court of law or no court of law.
The headline above is outdated - Massie v Trump was over 2 weeks back. Trump and AIPAC had their way. Just after the fact, Peak Stupidity and Unz Review commenter E.H. Hail, mentioned an Ann Coulter post from day before the election (good try, Ann) The Lies About Rep. Thomas Massie. Ann Coulter bats about a .980 by my reckoning, but, I did find something in that post of hers that brought up today's post, something I don't agree at all with:
Claim 2: Massie “supported transgenders in women’s bathrooms.”No, of course, it's not the header and first paragraph I disagree with. I provided that here for context.
Utterly preposterous. Massie has NEVER supported any bill to allowing biological males in women’s bathrooms in schools, prisons, or federal buildings.
I could leave it there, but I believe they are referring to Massie’s statement that he was against the executive branch using the threat of withdrawing federal funds to dictate campus policies, such as forcing colleges to freeze tuition, or waive it altogether; to abolish entire departments; and to impose a cap on foreign students. Among the executive branch’s other demands was that colleges ban men from women’s bathrooms.
Some Republicans may think it’s a great idea for the federal government to ignore the constitution and force ANTI-woke policies on private entities now, but they’ll be sorry when Democrats are back in control and force their WOKE policies on private entities using the same threat.
Sorry, Miss Coulter, but you are flat-out wrong about Trump's use of the "power of the [Fed Gov] purse" to get his (and OUR!) way. Let's consider first that President Trump often has to take action Administratively, as the UniParty Congress is not there to help. (Besides the SCrOTUS had been improved slightly, the Judicial Branch actively works against Trump's actions against the PRP.) Is this not a good way to do it?
Taking advantage of one of the many evils of Socialism, that the Feral Gov't has its hands in all realms of activity, is a smart move. Hey, Socialists, you done good for yourselves - you've made your programs very difficult for us to back out of. You've got Big Gov in a position to be able to control organizations of all sorts due to these strings you've attached, and the flow of the money*. It's a shame that someone can take power and use it against you. Didn't see that coming, did ya'?
The bigger point than that I am arguing with Ann Coulter about is that it's often said many of the actions we take to try to defeat the ctrl-left will only be used against us later. I'll get back to this particular "purse strings" deal at the end, but let me discuss a few examples of this thinking.
My first example is almost non-controversial these days. That is due to that neither side really respects or even remembers the Constitution, and also it's water long under the bridge, in fact, over a century ago.
Ron Paul and I don't disagree on much either. One minor thing on which we do is the use of eVerify to help (just help, mind you) prevent employment of illegal aliens. It's an invasion of privacy, he'll tell you, what with the US Gov't knowing who works where. I shouldn't have to tell YOU, Dr. Paul, of all people, that, once Amendment XVI was put into place, the US Gov't did have to know where people worked, along with quite a big of other information. Hah, it's unimaginable to just about everyone alive today that "I don't need to tell any government where I work. NOTB!" What? Unpossible! Yes, lots of freedom has been lost.
So, if we use eVerify to find illegal employement, the US Government can use that against us, somehow?. Maybe Ron Paul is worried it will be greatly expanded, but I ... just don't worry about this water under the bridge...
That was a very benign example. On the other end, and also related to Immigration Stupidity, there is the expanded ICE force and the building of detention centers for deportees (they don't have to be illegal aliens either, IMO!) out of unused warehouses. I'm all for it! Peak Stupidity has discussed the Strategy and Tactics of Deportation Nation before. There is inherently a lot to it, and temporary detention centers are a part of the logistics.
The big worry is, will ICE be used to round US up next time a ctrl-left (face it, Communist) President gets in office? Will American patriots be put in these detention centers, since they'll have a lot more room than that one Washington, FS dungeon that held the J-6 Political Prisoners? Should we not open this Pandora's Box? I'll answer this at the end, after more discussion here of Ann Coulter's boner. (Heh!)
Universities get loads of Federal money via various streams. What's wrong with Trump’s use of the strings of Federal money to threaten universities to play ball? As far as the Constitutionality goes, BULL, there's no problem. In this era of Socialism**, you take Federal money, and then you are NO LONGER a “private entity”. You want the money, and this time it’s Trump who says “Jump!”, and you’d better jump, bitches!
That goes for all manner of GSNGOs (That's Government- Supported Non-Governmental Organizations - sounds very Chinese, doesn't it?) too. The left depends on Federal money much more than the right does. Remember USAID, an organization solely supported by OUR tax money working completely on left-wing causes? Any organization that has leaned to the right, has learned that they’d better not go too far, and they’d better comply with the latest D.I.E., BLT-G++, Wokeness business, or the money will go buh-bye. Many figure that’s for the best anyway. Either way, Federally funded institutions will lean hard left.
Yes, that was an easy example to argue for us. It's not as if a light bulb has yet to go off in the minds of those on the left: "Hey, we can control society using Federal money!" That bulb has been lit up since the 1960s.
The serious business of a build-up of a bigger Federal police force and detainment apparatus is a more serious worry. I understand the concern. Those concerned might want to think about a few things:
1) The Population Replacement Programme is an existential problem. If we don't fix this, it's hardly worth worrying about the rest - go Communist, I don't care... there's always Uruguay. (Nah, it's not really...)
2) Unless we use our powers as specified in Amendment II by some point, the ctrl-left WILL do what you are concerned about, whether we Conservatives refrain from it on principle or not! They will use any power they can get away with to silence us, threaten us, and put us away for life.
That goes for every effort for which the worry in the title is raised. The ctrl-left is going to do it anyway. They have ZERO concern for rule-of-law and principles at this point.
Finally, regarding that point at the beginning of this post about 40 years ago versus the present, I can see a different answer to the argument "They'll use it against us" being correct back in the day. With some exceptions, especially in the courts, politics was more civil in the mid-1980s. The US Constitution was actually considered in debates on bills in Congress and the powers of the President. Setting a bad example by trashing rule-of-law might very well cause the other side to do what they wouldn't have otherwise.
That was then. This is now. "They'll use it against us" no matter what we do now. Let's get things done while we have a chance.
* Peak Stupidity considers this evil - the flow of the money - to be THE #1 of the 5 evils (shades of Chairman Mao?) of the Federal Income tax that were listed and discussed here 5 years ago.
** I know, this Socialism is unConstitutional to begin with - again, much water under the bridge.
Comments: