Archive → May, 2026
What the new J6 weaponization fund means, to me
Two parts to this blog entry. First part is what the new January 6th (J6) weaponization fund for reimbursing victims of the weaponized Biden DOJ means to me. Second part is Roger Stone’s outstanding essay about this fund and its larger context, its background.
Part 1: What the new “Anti-Weaponization Fund” means to me.
While I am not one to tout my victim status, as if I have much in any case, the new reimbursement fund for J6 victims means something concrete to me. It means precisely $3,000, the amount I was unfairly forced to spend to have a competent attorney present when two FBI agents “interviewed” me about J6, several years ago.
Yes, I was at the January 6th, 2021 mostly peaceful protest out in front of the US Capitol in Washington, DC. Like a million other fed-up American citizens that day, I stood exactly where us peaceful protestors were supposed to stand that day: Out in front and around the sides of the building.
I did not break anything.
I did not hurt anyone or attack anyone.
I did not go inside the US Capitol, nor try.
All I did was peacefully stand out in front of the barricades, in the approved area, sing our National Anthem, sing God Bless America, chant “USA! USA! USA!,” and watch in horrified disgust as uniformed police officers illegally beat, pepper sprayed, gassed, bombed, and shot with rubber bullets myself and the peaceful protestors all around me.
I watched a police officer wearing black tactical gear walk up and down the barricades, leaning over them and clubbing peaceful protestors in the face, head, hands, shoulders, and arms with his baton. These American citizens had done nothing illegal or wrong or threatening. They were just standing there. The instigation and violence was all with the police.
I watched a handsome young man in a business suit, carrying an American flag and standing at the barricade, get shot point-blank in the face with a police-only explosive flash-bang grenade. His cleanshaven face was blasted white, and blood ran out of his eyes, nose, and mouth. He staggered backwards, unable to see, and then members of the crowd helped move him back, away from the ultra-violent police officers.
I watched dozens of events like this, got gassed several times and shot dozens of times with rubber bullets, before my friends and I called it quits and walked to where our chartered bus was waiting at Union Station. We rode home to Pennsylvania in mostly stunned silence. The raw and lawless evil we had just experienced out in front of the US Capitol was precisely the opposite of what is supposed to happen in our constitutional republic. We citizens are supposed to be able to peacefully assemble and petition the government with our grievances.
Instead, we were abused, beaten, hurt, antagonized by the very people paid to actually protect us. It was a shocking experience, which I wrote about the day after here on this blog.
And then a year and a half later, two FBI agents showed up at my home. One very butch lady named Melissa, and a forties-aged guy named Patrick Armor. I was not home, so Agent Armor engaged with my wife and two kids at home at the time. Yes, he said, they really wanted to talk with me. No, I had done nothing wrong on January 6th, but they really wanted to talk with me about things I may have seen.
My son asked Agent Armor if I had to contact him, and what would happen if I just ignored them.
“Oh, we will talk with Josh one way or another,” Agent Armor said, implying that the same wildly unreasonable official violence America was watching being used against all kinds of J6 victims could easily be brought to bear on me, too. You know, the 6AM dawn door-busting raid by 25 to 30 heavily armed federal agents in tactical body armor, grenades, and machine guns that so many other peaceful J6 protestors had been treated to.
A couple hours later I got a photo of Agent Patrick Armor’s FBI card, and I emailed him. He responded quickly, and encouraged me to just “talk on the phone” with him. Which of course was a huge red flag by then, as the Biden FBI and DOJ had been on a zero-due-process Stalinesque round-up of political enemies across America. A prospective victim like me just had to talk on the phone, the federal agent would lie about it, and make up something that would then justify arresting that innocent person, and then your life was over.
So I assured Agent Patrick Armor that I would have an attorney get in touch with him, and set up an interview with an attorney present, thereby protecting my constitutional rights.
Months later we met in a local attorney’s office. Me, the attorney, her stenographer and recorder, Agent Patrick Armor and an Agent Oh (not a stage name; he was Korean, and Oh is a common Korean last name).
When Agent Patrick Armor asked me if I saw anything illegal or involving violence or destruction, I said “Yeah, I saw the police! I watched the police badly injure and beat the hell out of innocent peaceful protestors, with no cause!”
Agent Patrick Armor just waved that off. No no, not that stuff, the crowd, the protestors is who the FBI is interested in. Instead of asking for more about the illegal police brutality I was willing to testify about, Agent Patrick Armor began asking me about what I did on January 6th.
“You know exactly what I did on January 6th better than I can recall now almost two years later” I responded. I reminded him and Agent Oh that their cell phone tracking ability could pin point every step I took on January 6th, from the bus ride starting in PA to the walk to the US Capitol to the location out in front of the US Capitol, and everything afterwards.
“If you already know where I was and what I did, then what is your purpose here of asking me to remember fine details of a chaotic day almost two years ago, if not to entrap me and accuse me of lying,” I said.
Agent Patrick Armor smiled cruelly at that response, and then began asking me about everything I did, everything everything everything about my experience that day, and what groups and organizations I belong to (he seemed genuinely alarmed about the old guy sportsmen’s clubs we have here in Pennsylvania, asked pointedly if I belonged to Proud Boys, Three Percenters, Oath Keepers or other similar organizations, and did not ask me about my friends who had been with me on J6); he even critiqued my blog essay about my J6 experience, pointing out that the Capitol Rotunda is actually inside the building, and not outside, as I had mistakenly written.
Note to freedom-loving Americans: When you have a federal agent criticizing your blog to your face, you have a justice system that is going off the rails and falling into the deep river canyon below. It is lawlessness in a free society that honors free speech.
After what felt like hours and hours, I had had enough, and said “I am done talking about something I can barely remember so long after the fact.”
My attorney assured me that I had not incriminated myself, nor lied, nor done or said anything that could be used against me by these federal agents. Little did she know then just how evil the Biden FBI was then becoming in these same circumstances, throwing law and constitution out the window in its pursuit of perfectly innocent people, like myself.
And so, that fake and unnecessary intimidation FBI interview hung over my head until President Trump won re-election for a third time in November 2024. All of my friends wondered aloud if some Biden Gestapo squad would come busting into my home at 4AM with fake charges from that interview. I concurred, but could think most about that three grand spent on the lawyer, instead of on the new roof our home needs.
So yeah, I intend to file a claim with the J6 weaponization fund people, and see if I cannot get my three grand back. I did nothing wrong, nothing that warranted two FBI agents grilling me. It would mean a lot to me, symbolically and financially, to get my money back.
Part 2: Here is Roger Stone on this subject, and he speaks for me if my words above are insufficient for you:
“…
The Republic in Chains
Empires rarely collapse all at once; they decay incrementally like an ancient cathedral left exposed to centuries of salt air and corrosion.
|
Empires rarely collapse all at once; they decay incrementally like an ancient cathedral left exposed to centuries of salt air and corrosion. The marble still glistens from a distance. The banners still wave. The ceremonies continue with rehearsed grandeur. Yet beneath the surface, the foundation begins to rot. Institutions once built to safeguard liberty metastasize into instruments of coercion. Bureaucracies swell into ravenous organisms consuming the very constitutional restraints that gave them life. The citizen gradually transforms from sovereign to subject while the state cloaks its appetite for power in the sanctimonious language of “security,” “justice,” and “democracy.” America now stands perilously close to that precipice.
This week the United States Department of Justice quietly acknowledged what millions of Americans have understood for years. On May 18, 2026 the Department of Justice announced the creation of what it calls the “Anti Weaponization Fund” a staggering $1.776 billion mechanism established through settlement agreements tied to the lawsuit Trump v. Internal Revenue Service. The suit stemmed from the unlawful leak of President Donald Trump’s tax returns and those of his family and business entities. Rather than monetary damages flowing directly to President Trump and the plaintiffs, the settlement instead creates a process whereby victims of government weaponization and political lawfare may seek apologies and financial redress from the federal government itself.
Pause for a moment and consider the sheer historical gravity of this announcement. The federal government is now formally establishing a taxpayer funded compensation structure for Americans harmed by politically motivated abuses carried out by government institutions. That alone is an indictment more damning than any speech ever delivered from the Senate floor. The very existence of this fund is an admission that the cancer of weaponized governance metastasized so profoundly throughout federal agencies that it now requires an official remediation process.
The Anti Weaponization Fund draws its money from the Treasury Department’s permanent Judgment Fund, the same perpetual appropriation mechanism historically used for government settlements and legal liabilities. Approximately $1.776 billion will transfer into the fund over the coming weeks. The structure itself is extraordinary. A five member commission appointed by the Attorney General will oversee claims, including one member selected in consultation with congressional leadership. The President retains removal authority over commissioners, and the panel will continue hearing claims until no later than December 1, 2028. Quarterly reports will be submitted to the Attorney General. Audits and anti fraud mechanisms are supposedly built into the process, while any remaining money at the end of the program returns to the federal government rather than activist organizations or politically connected nongovernmental entities.
The commission will reportedly evaluate claims according to the “totality of the circumstances,” including legal costs, imprisonment, financial losses, reputational destruction, and other demonstrable harms tied to politically motivated investigations or prosecutions. No partisan requirement officially exists. In theory any American who believes he or she was targeted by government power for ideological, political, or personal reasons may apply for compensation or formal acknowledgment.
That detail alone distinguishes this fund from earlier government settlement structures such as the Obama era Keepseagle settlement involving discrimination claims against the Department of Agriculture. Critics on the left have already erupted in apoplexy, hysterically describing the fund as a “slush fund” for Trump supporters and January 6 defendants. Yet the irony is staggering. These are the same political factions that spent years applauding taxpayer funded legal crusades, multimillion dollar special counsel investigations, coordinated intelligence leaks, censorship campaigns, and prosecutorial fishing expeditions aimed almost exclusively at conservatives, populists, Trump allies, and dissidents.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche declared that “the machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American.” Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter condemned the use of federal authority for “improper and unlawful political, personal, or ideological reasons.” Those are remarkable words because they constitute an extraordinary institutional confession. The Justice Department is effectively admitting that the federal apparatus became infected with partisan venom.
The term “lawfare” itself has become one of the defining terms of modern American politics. It is derived from combining the words “law” and “warfare,” a concept popularized by Air Force Colonel Charles Dunlap in 2001. At its core, lawfare means using legal systems as weapons rather than instruments of justice. Courts become battlefields. Prosecutors become political assassins wearing tailored suits instead of military uniforms. Investigations are strategically timed to destroy reputations, bankrupt adversaries, silence dissent, and manipulate public perception. The process itself becomes the punishment. Endless subpoenas, coordinated leaks, selective prosecutions, confiscatory legal bills, ruined careers, frozen bank accounts, and public humiliation become tools of attrition.
The Left perfected this strategy with almost medieval precision. The American legal system was transformed into a labyrinthine torture chamber designed to exhaust political enemies financially, emotionally, physically, and psychologically. They understood that even if convictions never materialized the spectacle itself could still inflict irreparable damage. The goal was never merely prosecution. The goal was obliteration.
Closely intertwined with lawfare is the broader phenomenon known as the weaponization of government. This phrase refers to the abuse of state power against citizens for political or ideological purposes. Agencies originally created to defend the nation instead become praetorian guards for entrenched bureaucracies and political factions. Intelligence agencies surveil political opponents. Federal law enforcement stages theatrical raids. Regulatory bodies harass disfavored industries and organizations. Social media companies receive pressure from government officials to censor lawful speech. Bureaucrats become unelected sovereigns operating behind layers of institutional opacity.
The Founding Fathers would have viewed such conduct as the behavior of tyrants. Thomas Jefferson warned repeatedly about the consolidation of executive power. James Madison feared factions manipulating institutions for partisan domination. George Washington cautioned against corrosive political tribalism consuming the republic from within. Benjamin Franklin famously warned Americans that they had been given “a republic, if you can keep it.” One suspects these men must now be rolling over in their graves as modern Americans witness armed federal agents behaving like a domestic occupying force.
I know this reality personally. I was besieged in my own home despite never committing a crime involving violence, espionage, or insurrection. Before dawn, 29 heavily armed FBI agents descended upon my residence in what can only be described as an outrageous pageant of intimidation orchestrated for maximum political theater. They arrived like a militarized phalanx storming a terrorist compound in Tikrit rather than serving a process crime indictment against a 66 year old political consultant. CNN had been conveniently tipped off in advance and positioned outside my home before the raid even began. That fact alone remains one of the most brazen and scandalous indications of collusion between federal law enforcement and corporate media in modern American history.
The entire spectacle was designed not for justice but for humiliation. It was political pornography masquerading as law enforcement. Federal agents armed with automatic firearms and other weapons arrived in tactical gear and stormed into my home before sunrise while cameras rolled outside to ensure maximum public degradation. Such conduct belongs in banana republics and collapsing authoritarian states, not in the constitutional republic established by George Washington and defended by generations of American patriots. They sent more people to arrest me than they did to neutralize Usama Bin Laden.
What happened to me was not isolated. President Donald Trump endured years of coordinated investigations, leaks, fabricated narratives, selective prosecutions, and unprecedented legal assaults. The Russia collusion hoax poisoned the nation for years despite collapsing under scrutiny. The Mar a Lago raid shattered all historical norms surrounding former presidents. Confidential tax records were leaked with virtual impunity. Intelligence officials manipulated media narratives while prosecutors and bureaucrats operated with astonishing asymmetry.
General Michael Flynn was financially annihilated through prosecutorial misconduct. Internal government communications later revealed discussions about whether the goal was to “get him to lie” or “get him fired.” A decorated military officer who served his country for decades was destroyed because he represented a threat to the permanent bureaucracy.
Rudy Giuliani, once celebrated as America’s Mayor for leading New York through the ashes and smoke of September 11, was transformed by the establishment media into a caricature to justify the destruction of his finances and reputation. His law licenses were attacked. His bank accounts were strained. His name continued to be dragged endlessly through the mud because he dared to challenge the ruling class and stand beside President Trump. The same media institutions that once canonized Giuliani suddenly treated him like a public enemy because political obedience matters more to the establishment than truth or loyalty.
Michael Caputo and his family also became casualties of this malignant culture of lawfare. Caputo has now filed one of the first claims seeking restitution through the Anti Weaponization Fund after years of investigations, smears, financial devastation, and personal suffering tied to the Russia investigation era. The implications are enormous because his claim may become the first domino in a tidal wave of similar filings by Americans who believe they were politically targeted.
The Michael McMahon case has now become one of the clearest modern examples of why Americans have lost faith in the integrity of the justice system itself. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the entire case against Michael McMahon in New York, a stunning development made even more extraordinary by the fact that the decision was ultimately unopposed by the prosecution. That detail speaks volumes. Cases with genuine evidentiary strength are defended aggressively on appeal. Here the government effectively stood aside while the conviction collapsed. Yet despite the implosion of the case, Michael McMahon had already endured imprisonment, financial devastation, reputational destruction, and years of emotional torment inflicted upon both him and his wife Martha along with their three children. The cost was not merely personal. Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were incinerated pursuing a prosecution against an innocent man that many Americans now view as fundamentally meritless from the beginning. Careers were destroyed first while questions came later.
Similarly countless January 6 cases have begun unraveling under deeper legal scrutiny. Charges once wielded like political bludgeons were later narrowed, reconsidered, vacated, or criticized after defendants had already lost homes, careers, businesses, and years of their lives. The damage had already been done. Men and women were transformed into political hostages while cable news networks converted prosecutions into prime time entertainment. The process itself became the punishment.
John Eastman likewise became one of the most visible casualties of modern lawfare. Eastman, a constitutional attorney and former law professor, advised President Trump regarding legal theories surrounding the disputed 2020 election. For that alone he became the target of disbarment proceedings, criminal investigations, financial ruin, public vilification, and relentless professional destruction. Regardless of whether one agrees with his legal theories, the broader danger is unmistakable. Lawyers cannot provide candid constitutional advice to presidents or political clients if every unpopular legal argument risks professional annihilation years later. Once legal advocacy itself becomes criminalized, constitutional government begins suffocating beneath the weight of political vengeance.
Jeff Clark represents another central figure in this expanding landscape of lawfare victims. Clark served as a senior Department of Justice official during the final year of the Trump Administration, including as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division and previously as head of the Environment and Natural Resources Division. A highly credentialed attorney educated at Harvard and Georgetown, Clark became a target because he questioned aspects of the 2020 election process and discussed potential investigative avenues within the Department of Justice. For those actions he became the subject of coordinated political attacks, congressional targeting, bar disciplinary proceedings, raids, investigations, crushing legal expenses, and attempts to destroy his professional livelihood.
Supporters argue that Clark is being punished not for criminal conduct but for offering legal advice and participating in internal executive branch deliberations that political opponents later found objectionable. The implications are chilling. If government lawyers can be professionally destroyed for providing controversial advice to elected officials, then future administrations will govern beneath a permanent cloud of fear, intimidation, and ideological enforcement. That is not constitutional governance. That is bureaucratic terror masquerading as ethics enforcement.
Then there are the January 6 defendants. Nearly 1,600 Americans were charged in connection with January 6. Many lost careers, homes, businesses, pensions, reputations, marriages, and years of their lives. One only needs to glance at social media to see and read all their stories which are, admittedly, too voluminous to fully comprehend all at once. Some J6er’s were held in prolonged pretrial detention under conditions critics described as punitive and politically motivated. Images of nonviolent defendants being marched in shackles, isolated, denied opportunities, and publicly vilified became symbols of what many Americans viewed as selective justice and ideological vengeance.
President Trump repeatedly described many January 6 defendants as “horribly treated” and victims of weaponized government. He issued pardons and commutations for many involved. Lawyers representing January 6 defendants are already signaling their intention to pursue restitution claims through the Anti Weaponization Fund for legal expenses, imprisonment, lost livelihoods, reputational destruction, and emotional suffering.
Predictably establishment figures erupted in outrage. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges have already moved to challenge the legality of the fund in court, arguing that taxpayer money should not compensate January 6 participants. Yet even Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche declined to categorically exclude such claimants, emphasizing instead that cases will be evaluated individually according to the totality of circumstances.
That phrase is critical because it suggests the commission may examine prosecutorial conduct, sentencing disparities, pretrial detention practices, financial ruin, selective charging decisions, and broader patterns of government behavior rather than merely accepting official narratives at face value.
Meanwhile politically connected figures on the left routinely escaped accountability for conduct that would have destroyed any conservative public figure. The violent Black Live Matter domestic terror attacks during 2020 caused billions of dollars in damage, destroyed neighborhoods, injured police officers, and terrorized cities across the nation, yet media organizations often described the chaos as “mostly peaceful.” Prosecutors dropped charges. Politicians raised bail money. Celebrities endorsed the unrest. Americans watched a bifurcated justice system emerge before their eyes. One standard existed for regime loyalists and another for dissidents. This asymmetry shattered public trust.
The Department of Justice announcement therefore represents something far larger than a settlement agreement. It is a tacit acknowledgment that confidence in federal institutions has catastrophically eroded. Once citizens begin viewing law enforcement and intelligence agencies as partisan actors rather than neutral guardians of justice, the moral legitimacy of the republic itself begins to fracture. Civilization depends upon confidence in impartial justice. Without it nations descend into tribalism, cynicism, instability, and eventually societal disintegration.
The Anti Weaponization Fund does not erase the damage already inflicted. It does not restore ruined reputations, recover lost years, or repair shattered families. It does not undo unconstitutional surveillance, improperly motivated political prosecutions, media coordinated character assassinations, destroyed careers, or psychological trauma. But it does represent something profoundly important. It is the first formal recognition by the federal government that the machinery of the state was corrupted and turned inward against the American people themselves.
For years millions of Americans were told these concerns were paranoid fantasies. They were mocked, censored, ridiculed, and dismissed. Anyone questioning federal agencies was branded dangerous, extremist, conspiratorial, or unhinged. Yet now the Department of Justice itself has effectively admitted the disease existed all along. The Goliath finally confessed what I and so many other Americans already knew. It had become sinister. It had become monstrous. And now after years of humiliation, intimidation, prosecutions, raids, censorship, surveillance, bankruptcies, and public destruction, the American people are finally demanding restitution from the very monster that turned against them.”
******
Portrait of an American Man
Across America, tourists visit all kinds of special places, built and natural. Across America, university campuses are home to special academic buildings, donated by successful business people who graduated from those same colleges. Probably everyone who visits and studies at these places take them for granted, except the conservancies, land trusts, and other caretakers charged with the operations and maintenance jobs.
Here today, we look at one of these historic donors, who built and donated one of America’s most famous architectural statements. He was a successful businessman from humble beginnings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Back in the 1920s and 1930s, the heyday of department stores, which were the internet/ Amazon/ eBay of their time, his family went from owning small clothing, fabric, and hat stores to one big department store in downtown Pittsburgh. The enormous store was famous for carrying everything that every household required, in grades, qualities, and prices that every household could afford. Foods, clothing, fabrics for making clothing, pots, pans, utensils, firearms and ammunition, fishing gear, shoes, work boots…the list is endless.
Incidentally, in the 1970s State College, PA, where I grew up, the O.W. Houts department store, out at the Western very end of College Avenue, carried everything a family would need, including old coins, stone arrowheads dug up in the local farm fields, records, a wide selection of utility-grade firearms (where I got my first .22 single shot rifle and a 16 gauge single shot shotgun), clothing, shoes, food, etc. Next door was the Houts Hardware store and Lumber Yard. They sold nails by the pennyweight, tools, keys, and of course all kinds of locally sourced lumber.
Despite its relatively small size, the O.W. Houts department store and hardware store were absolutely core parts of the State College area lifestyle. And so we can imagine what the gigantic Kaufmann Department Store was like in Pittsburgh, many many times the size of Houts. The wives and daughters of coal miners shopping for calico two aisles over from the wives and daughters of coal mine owners shopping for lace and fur trimmings. 1920s Pittsburgh was a gigantic melting pot of iron, steel, and fifty different nationalities from around the world, and everyone got most of their necessities from the Kaufmann Department Store.
Edgar Kaufmann built the family business from the ground up, taking big risks and making big sacrifices along the way, and became exceptionally wealthy. His family upbringing emphasized giving charity, which he did in large amounts throughout his life. The one charitable donation he is best known for is Fallingwater and its surrounding Bear Run Preserve.
Below is Edgar Kaufmann’s portrait, done in 1929, and occasionally on display at Fallingwater, which is where I photographed it. It is filled with meaningful symbolism and clues to his personality and outlook on life. Below is my understanding of this statement.
Edgar is standing between two potent symbols, the (Christian?) alms bowl (charity) to his right, and the carefully shielded Middle Eastern crescent moon, on his left. This moon would be his own background, of the desert, partially obstructed by cloth, that is slightly pulled back to both cover it, and also reveal it by drawing the eye to it. Cloth being the most representative symbol of his department store’s biggest staple as well as its famous fashion statements.
He is holding a rustic walking stick in his dominant right hand, which puts emphasis on the importance of this simple cut branch. Yes, it is a humble symbol of hiking and the outdoor lifestyle, and it also has the V top for holding venomous snakes’ heads. The other venemous snakes in 1929 were the Nazis, and maybe this is his way of saying he would be seeking to catch them and pin them down. Or that he was at least aware of them in his life.
Edgar’s left arm leans heavily on the chair, perhaps a symbol of his never-ending work ethic stuck at a desk.
The chair’s right side, Edgar’s outdoorsy, charitable, artistic, manly, masculine, and muscular side, is well carved, carefully defined. Its left side is deliberately stunted and malformed, as if to say that his outdoors life and his charity work defined him best, and his boring work life was his least interesting aspect. Don’t we all have have different sides to us and to our personalities?
His sporty tennis sweater says all-America, while his shirt sleeves are pulled up to reveal his manly biceps. The tennis sweater is Harvard red, instead of the blue from his alma mater Yale. Something must have happened at Yale to make him upset with the school.
Edgar Kaufmann conveys an image of American masculinity straddling two worlds, one of which he must subtly hide. And the reason I picked this portrait to write about is because nearly 100 years after this was painted, America is back to that 1929 period, where American Jews have to hide their identity, lest they be hurt, abused, robbed, for merely being Jews. This is not a good reflection on Americans, that we have come back to this kind of un-American behavior.
Edgar was a political conservative, but a cultural libertine..another personality split some readers might relate to. He helped design, build, lived in, showcased, and then donated Fallingwater through his son, Edgar jr, for public benefit. Across America, so many historic tourist attractions and artistic buildings were created or donated by Jews, as were an awful lot of the donated buildings at universities. We should be celebrating this ethic, not picking on these people as a whole.
Musical “1776” Two Thumbs Up
Please do not tell anyone, but I saw a musical play the other day, and I liked it. Humiliating to admit, yes, but our three readers come here for honesty, if nothing else. Today you get five doses of honesty: The musical “1776” was excellent, timely, accurate, entertaining, and all the other positive stuff that my movie and theater critic mentors Siskel & Ebert would say about it.
We saw it at the historic Walnut Street Theater in Philadelphia, America’s oldest longest-continuously running theater. Because the venue has a sane policy on weapons (have your carry permit available if anyone asks to see it), I was strapped. I was strapped because it is downtown Philly, where the Wild West can descend upon one in the blink of an eye.
The docents, volunteers, and paid staff were all nice and helpful. Before the show started, we could have raised Lazarus more readily than actually reaching a human being during operating hours. Weak spot, but probably a weak spot in all theaters. No one there answers the phones or the emails until after you have come and gone.
Look here, theater is not for me. Watching adults play dress-up and make-believe is usually overwhelmingly annoying for me. These are not mature people, and many of them have gratingly annoying personalities. It is impossible to take actors seriously, on stage or off. Now that TDS is ravaging Hollywood, I am reminded daily about how much I dislike actors. It seems that the kind of people drawn to acting all fall into the “Big Jerk” category of life.
One exception in my world exists for those live stage performances that are about meaningful, inspirational, true stories. Biblical stuff ranks “acceptable.” Political theater is almost always heavily slopped to the falling overboard-left, preachy, inaccurate, dumb, communist, and, thus, annoying. Best bets are on movies, where the nonsense and forgotten lines moments have been left on the editing room floor.
“1776” is about the writing of the Declaration of Independence over a one month period, however, and is, therefore, a ten out of ten in my book, any day. It involves the story of the delegates from 13 colonies, debating the break-up with Britain, in Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, in June and early July, 1776. The widely documented personal performances of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and our own (local to PA) John Dickinson are performed admirably by the capable actors. Thank you!
Real focus is put onto the debate about slavery, which did occur in the actual Continental Congress, and how that hot issue was taken out of Jefferson’s first version of the Declaration of Independence. Depicting this on stage is especially important these days, as it is bizarrely considered “cool” by some to incorrectly badmouth America about slavery.
Fact: In 1794 America just about had a civil war over slavery. We also almost had a full civil war over whisky and taxes, then, too. But abolishing slavery was an early goal in our nation’s founding, and white people were ready to fight and die to end it, even as slavery was a full blown enterprise in the rest of the world. Eventually American whites got around to that fighting and dying thing, in 1861, when the insurrectionist Democrat Party declared separation from the rest of America, over keeping their slaves.
By 1865, the Republicans took away the Democrats’ slaves, and as we see even today, the Democrats never forgave them for it.
I digress.
That this was a musical without much singing was God’s way of showing me that beauty can occasionally exist in the darnedest places, including on a stage full of … feh… actors. That most of the singing that did occur was bawdy or silly really took the sting out of the musical part.
The actors said their lines well, performed very well, and entertained us audience people well, about an important subject. The Walnut Street Theater was clean, had no stray odors, and was a pleasure to visit. All the audience members upon whom I threw myself were friendly and gracious.
In another couple of months America, us, our nation, will celebrate its 250th anniversary since our founding. It is a really big deal. This play was timed to synch with our national celebration, and it fits well. If you find yourself going anywhere near Philly in the coming weeks or months, go see “1776.”
And go strapped, because the venue has a Constitutionally-minded policy on 2A concealed carry. God bless ’em. That was the only reason I set foot inside the theater…they actually believe in FREEDOM.
Lab grown vs Beautiful Naturals
Quite a debate has been raging for some years, decades really, about the impact of lab grown gems on the natural gem market. This debate is at peak right now, and appears to be headed in a surprising direction.
We are talking here primarily about colored gemstones, not diamonds. Lab grown diamonds for wearing as gems completely defeat the entire purpose of having a diamond in the first place. Gem-grade diamond grown by Mother Nature is quite rare, and therefore quite valuable. Lab grown diamonds are not rare, but are rather just cheap knock-offs of the real deal. What is the point of wearing a fake that looks just like the real? Are you trying to mislead people? That says a lot about you!
Forget those lab grown diamonds.
What started in the 1950s with junky, soft, easily identified, easily fractured high impact glass morphed into better quality lab-grown cubic zirconiums. Those “CZs” ruled the roost of cheap gem knock-offs for decades, both colored and clear, and were easily detectable by the eye and with simple two-prong “diamond testers” of many makes. Either a stone was diamond, or it wasn’t, and if it was not a diamond, it was most likely CZ.
The colored versions of CZ were almost ridiculous looking. They lacked the soft, deep, subtle nuance of the colored stones they were supposed to emulate, primarily red ruby and blue sapphire, and were often blindingly garish. Easy to spot these as fakes from a mile away, only the most unabashed or cheap wore them as deliberate gem representations.
Early attempts at lab growing blue sapphire corundum (and ruby, which is just the red version of corundum) gem-grade crystals bore rudimentary fruit, with clear growth rings that separated lab Frankenstein creations from Mother Nature’s real, beautiful, naturals. Same for lab emeralds, most of which still today have an unnatural nuclear-green Kryptonite color that is 99.999999% impossible to create naturally.
GIA really exploded in importance in this time period, because lots of decent lab-made fakes were being offered as natural colored stones, and GIA labs could analyze stones and certify them as natural, or not.
However, starting in the 1980s, the age of President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” anti-Soviet space lasers and incredibly accurate laser sighting systems for terrestrial military tank cannons, and then for laser cameras on military satellites that can count the hairs on a fly’s ass from 100 miles up in space, etc, American and Russian laboratories began to grow various crystals from corundum and other chemical concoctions (like YAG) to suit the military’s optical needs, which also happened to result in true gem-quality product. Clear, clean, visually appealing, natural looking, hard.
In all of this re-purposing of mostly sapphire/ corundum and garnet crystals for high tech optical uses, a broader public niche slowly opened up: Gem-grade lab grown…gems. These lab-created crystals-cum-gems are mostly actual ruby and actual sapphire that look in all ways like something created over hundreds of millions of years in the Earth’s crust…. or, in the alternative, these gems are something else entirely, with non-garish, unnatural, but nonetheless truly beautiful gem properties, like the various colors of YAG.
Lab-grown Alexandrite is one of the cooler gems, because it occurs naturally (in extremely limited quantities, mainly in the Ural Mountains) and yet the lab creation looks exactly like the beautiful natural material. Making it in the lab is not that easy, so it is not ridiculously cheap.
Now, we are seeing people experiment with custom-grown lab crystals made to specific color (using various rare earth metals), refractive, and chatoyant characteristics, with hardnesses of 8-9 Mohs, which make them eminently wearable as personal gems. These purpose-crafted lab creations are not garish, but rather are beautiful gems to look at, and easy to appreciate. When encased in gold or platinum, they look every bit as beautiful as a genuine natural pigeon blood ruby or Ceylon cornflower sapphire, or more beautiful.
The advantages of these lab gems is that they cost far, far less than the naturals, and can be made to look as good as, or better, than the naturals. How is that for a ROI? Pretty damned good!
Why do humans wear gems and jewelry in the first place? First and foremost to make ourselves more attractive. Other reasons include showing off wealth, hoarding wealth, making wealth highly portable in times of war or dislocation. Royalty the world over wear crowns made of precious metals and absolutely loaded down with precious rare gems. These crowns are a form of banking, concentrating wealth – and thus power – in one very small place.
What the lab created colored gem stones have done is democratize beauty, making gems and personal beauty more affordable and thus more widely available. They have also grown appreciation for just how rare are the actual natural stones in those royal crowns and sceptres and sold by Harry Winston. By making beautiful gemstones both believable and also widely available, lab gems are here to stay. People can pick and choose personally tailored gems that work best for their own unique skin tones and eye colors.
And of course, there are already fakes of lab created gem stones, made of glass, so already the lab stones must have some greater value than just glass.
To put this crassly, everyone loves a beautiful natural, but boy, those lab enhanced “fakes” sure look good, don’t they? And the fact that they function just as well as the naturals, or even better, means they are here to stay.
America’s 250th Anniversary approaches… how many people care?
America’s 250th anniversary arrives this July 4th Independence Day. A huge milestone, an enormous achievement, a remarkable record, two hundred and fifty years protecting indivdiual rights as a constitutional republic.
I am excited about this event. But is anyone else?
When I drive around, anywhere, do I see extra American flags, extra examples of patriotism or excitement? Nope. Nothing.
The silence is deafening.
It seems that very few Americans are excited enough about our nation’s 250th anniversary to do much about it, to show their extra enthusiasm, or appreciation. Don’t you think this is odd? I do.
It may be that Americans do not know how to celebrate the 25oth. I mean, will we set off more fireworks than ususal? Wave more flags and banners and patriotic bunting than ususal? Hang flags from our vehicles? Drink more, war whoop more, or shoot tracers into the night sky more than usual?
One thing for sure, most Americans seem to take America for granted, as if we are too big to fail. So, they think, why celebrate something that we take for granted, that we already believe is due and kind of boring and unremarkable…
This is how cultures and nations end.
When a nation’s citizens cease being excited about their nation, and about its longevity in a world hostile to individual freedom and liberty, they cease valuing that nation. And when they cease valuing it, they cease protecting it, safeguarding it. They give it away, like give its citizenship and taxpapyer money to illegal border jumpers; they throw it away, engage in all kinds of self-destructive virtue signaling, like calling America bad names and unfairly criticizing her for ridiculous things.
America is not too big to fail, folks. And while there are a lot of folks trying to make America fail, like Barack Hussein Obama, we do not see a commensurate backlash against them.
Mad Magazine’s longtime cover was Alfred E. Newman, saying “What me worry.” Because he was an idiot. Because only idiots do not worry about the future, and stability, and the strength of national currency, etc. Has America become populated by a bunch of Alfred E. Newmans?
The lack of American flags and patriotic fervor about our 250th sure seem to indicate it.










