↓ Archives ↓

Posts Tagged → fund

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.”

******

FBI Agent Patrick Armor at my front door, speaking to my gentle wife and one of my kids

 

 

SAVE ICE

The SAVE Act is in its final throes of being brought to a vote in the US Senate. This is the proposed law that will require all voters to prove they are American citizens before they can cast a vote.

Makes sense to me. The only people who would oppose this kind of basic election law are those who oppose election integrity and who want vote cheating.

Way way too many memes contrasting the ridiculous claim that getting ID to vote is racist, because you know how racist it is when we show our IDs to buy booze, get into a venue, pick up a prescription medicine etc etc… there is no good reason why a person would oppose ID for voting. The only people who oppose ID for voting are people who benefit from fraudulent elections.

Which is why funding for ICE ( U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is so important: America must have control of its borders, control of who enters America, and control over what these people are carrying into America.

Controlling who enters America helps us control who is voting in America, because one political party has turned illegal immigrants into a business plan (illegal votes, stolen elections, fraudulent government grants recycled back into that political party).

So, today is SAVE ICE Day. We need the SAVE America Act and we need ICE funding, which are both being held up by just one political party that objects to basic election integrity and national borders integrity.

Also last night, that one political party held a political rally in costume called “The Oscars,” in which personal IDs had to be presented multiple times in order to take a seat behind the very high walls, and in which voting for winners was limited to a very carefully selected and vetted group of people.

Schizophrenia used to be a feared medical condition, but nowadays it is an honorable, even noble calling. By only the wealthiest of self-appointed elites, no less.

I sure hope we are able to SAVE ICE and bypass national schizophrenia surrounding American elections going forward.

Screenshot

Screenshot

Screenshot

Screenshot

Screenshot

Screenshot

Screenshot

Four easy things you and I can do to reclaim college education

College education needs to be reclaimed if America is going to succeed in coming generations.

Getting a “college education” these days has zero to do with getting educated, and everything to do with being indoctrinated and shamed, coerced, and guilted into agreeing with extremist teachers just to get a passing grade. Nothing today about college is truly educational. College is 100% radical anti-America indoctrination, even for kids pursuing a technical or scientific degree, because the electives alone are Man-Hating 101, Sexual Confusion 202, Inconsistent & Hypocritical Argumentation 303, and Moral & Intellectual Relativism 404. Four years of this junk and even the brightest kid is gone.

Having put one of my kids through “America’s most liberal college,” and with another one being similarly indoctrinated with huge malfeasance at a second university, sensitivities to the mis-education of American youth are honed razor sharp around here.

If you are one of those easy going liberals who is just fine with your kid being barked at and browbeaten into submission by people you yourself would never hire into your own business, then shame on you for allowing your own child to be ruined. Your kid will not be prepared to think straight after undergoing the kind of nonsense now passing as college education. All your hard-earned money is being poured down a drain. I do not desire any of this for my kids.

College indoctrination is a soup of subjective notions and unprovable ideas that cannot stand the light of day, and it is for this reason that universities have circled their wagons with anti-free speech codes and all kinds of other unconstitutional foolishness meant to insulate the indoctrination from being challenged. And the few challengers are brow beaten and given poor grades.

No diverse or free thinking allowed for you!

So if you are interested in seeing universities once again become centers of learning and ideas, of critical thinking skills and robust debate, then here are some easy things you can do:

a) Do not donate a dime to your alma mater or graduate school. Don’t give them a penny, and if you feel like telling them why, do it, and tell your alumni association, too. Explain that you will not give one red cent toward political indoctrination and the crushing of free thought and individual liberty.

b) Write to your elected state representatives and demand that they eliminate faculty tenure from whatever your state university system is. Tenure is what shields the biggest losers, the most incompetent frauds from being outed as the academic nincompoops they are. Tenure was supposed to protect free thought; now tenure is used to eliminate free thought. Make every college professor at a state university work hard and compete for a five year contract. Make professors actually earn the money they are paid and the class room time they have. That will eliminate about 80% of the ideological foolishness now presented as “education,” and it will incentivize private colleges to follow the same course.

c) File a lawsuit against your kid’s university on behalf of your kid for all of the racial profiling, racial harassment, and racial discrimination now masquerading as being against “white privilege.” That phrase, “white privilege,” is a disgusting racist epithet meant to prepare people of a certain skin color for genocide. No two ways about it. If you said this about anyone else’s skin color, you would be rightly booted from polite company. So take it to the courts and get real justice, because under most state law public institutions and private institutions taking public money cannot engage in this kind of official racial discrimination. Lawsuits at NYU, Oberlin, and Google are paving the way. Join in, you just might win back your kid’s college tuition.

d) Write to your state representatives and demand that no further taxpayer funding be provided to schools where “white privilege” racism and anti-male discrimination is being taught or promoted, or any other fake racial/sexual nonsense is being bandied about as truth.

And again, if you are one of those liberal parents who is just so happy that your kids got degrees in gender studies, critical race theory, underwater basket weaving, and drawing rainbows for fifty thousand bucks a year, then you are dumb, foolish, even stupid, because those kids who did not undergo that trash will be out-thinking and out-competing your dumbed-down kids for the next fifty years. And it is all your fault; you were not just complicit in the ruination of your own children, you caused their failure.

Yeah, way to go Mom and Dad; great job.

PA wildlife: damned if we do, damned if we don’t

Like every other state in the Union, Pennsylvania protects, conserves, and manages its wildlife through a combination of user-pays fees like hunting and fishing licenses on the one hand, and a helping of federal funding collected from user-self-imposed federal taxes on hunting and fishing equipment like boats, guns, ammunition, fishing rods etc on the other hand (the same people who buy the hunting and fishing licenses).

Yes, 100% of the nation’s citizenry benefits from the self-imposed taxes and fees paid by just 1% of the population: the hunters, trappers, and fishermen.  Yes, you read that right: just 1% of the population is carrying 100% of the public burden.

And yes, as you are correctly about to say out loud, you and I will not see this bizarre and totally unsustainable arrangement in any other area of public policy. Not in roads, not in schools, not in airports, not in museums, not in anything else official and run for public benefit. And so, yes, it is a fact that wildlife agencies across America are perennially underfunded, and have been for so long that it’s now accepted as the way America does its wildlife business. Here in Pennsylvania, despite endless rising costs and endlessly more expensive public pensions, both houses of the PA legislature have long blocked the PA Game Commission from getting a hunting license increase in decades. So the PGC is even more behind the financial Eight Ball than most other state wildlife agencies. Hunters and wildlife managers in other states look at Pennsylvania and shake their heads. It doesn’t have to be this way, but it is.

Despite the obvious imbalance and weakness inherent in such a unique and faulty funding arrangement, for fifty years this approach worked pretty well, nationally and in Pennsylvania, with some states occasionally putting new money into holes that opened up in the regular wildlife funding support. Those states with significantly increasing human populations tend to be forced into dealing with inevitable wildlife-human conflicts more than other states, and when Mr. and Mrs. America are increasingly hitting deer with their cars, you can bet that they will demand their home state do something about it. So more money is found.

So along comes the Pennsylvania Auditor General, to investigate the management and expenditure of money at the PGC. And why not, right? The PGC is a public agency, and hunting license revenue is a public trust. So sure, go ahead, look into it, audit the agency. And so it was done, and some interesting things emerged just a bit over a week ago.

In the “Atta boy” column is the fact that there appears to be no corruption, graft, or misuse of scarce sportsmen’s dollars at the PGC. By all accounts, PGC is transparent and well run. Given how much the sportsmen are always scrutinizing the agency, we all figured as much. But it is nice to have our beliefs and trust confirmed like this. We love the PGC even more today than before the audit.

In the “Aww shucks” column is the revelation that PGC staff do not immediately deposit oil and gas royalty checks when they are received, nor does the PGC ascertain for itself if those royalty payments are accurate in the first place, instead trusting the oil and gas companies to do what is right on their own. Hmmmm….This is a potential problem area, and we are all glad the auditors found it.  Anyone who knows the PGC can bet money on the fact that PGC staff are right now doing all of this payment followup with a vengeance. Look out, oil and gas companies!

But then there is the big weird issue, the biggest issue of all, where the auditors “discover” that the PGC is sitting on $72 million in the bank. And accordingly, the auditors immediately and erroneously ascribe this to bad money management. After all, they say, public money is meant to be spent. “If you got ’em, smoke ’em,” goes the ancient and totally irresponsible government approach to managing public dollars. After all, under normal budgeting culture, agencies that do not spend the money budgeted to them risk losing those dollars in the next budget cycle. Failure to spend money is correlated with a failure to implement an agency’s mission, and for senior agency managers, there is the usual ego factor; the bigger the budget, the bigger the…you know. This is the old approach to managing government funds, and it is wrong, and it certainly does not fit the PGC’s reality or targeted way of doing business.

Let’s ask you a question: If you knew your family was going to be receiving less and less money going forward, and yet your family costs would be held steady, wouldn’t you begin to bank any extra money you had, in preparation for lean times ahead? If your family is responsible, then yes, this is what you do, it is what we all do. And it is what the PGC has done, thankfully.

But as a result of the audit, this single fact is being used to beat on the agency, to coerce the PGC to adopt unsustainable policies and irresponsible money management, despite the agency sailing through ever less sustainable funding waters every day. Seems like now every elected official and every Monday morning quarterback sportsman has some variation on the foolish theme that PGC has more money than it knows what to do with. Wrong!

So the real outcome of the audit is that Pennsylvania wildlife are damned either way, because the PGC is the useful straw man whipping boy for every aspiring demagogue in Pennsylvania politics. No matter what the PGC does, our wildlife resources are going to suffer. If PGC carefully, frugally husbands its limited resources, preparing for rainy days and needy wildlife, then the agency’s critics say the agency is miserly and hoarding, and they seek to punish the agency. And on the other hand, if the PGC immediately spends every dime it has, and has no money left over to deal with yet more unfunded mandates like Chronic Wasting Disease, then critics say the agency is wasteful and ineffective, and they seek to punish the agency.

And either way, the net result is the PGC’s critics damn and condemn our wildlife. Because that is the true result of all this second-guessing and monkeying about with the PGC budget and funding streams. Plenty of elected officials use their criticism of the PGC to artificially burnish their “good government” credentials, when in fact they are demanding the worst sort of government, and a total disservice to the sportsmen and wildlife everyone enjoys.

Many years ago, sportsmen were organized enough to react strongly to political demagogues who threatened our wildlife resource (and PA’s $1.6 billion annual hunting economy) with their petty politics. This latest iteration of the politics of wildlife management indicates that we need to get back to the old days, where sportsmen were unified and forceful, even vengeful, in their expectation that their elected officials would not politicize or hurt our commonly held wildlife resource.

Voter Access, Public Funding of Private Elections…

I so totally agree with the gist of this opinion piece by our local newspaper of record, the Patriot News:

By Matt Zencey, May 15, 2014

Tuesday is Primary Election Day, and every year when it rolls around, I’m reminded of this unpleasant fact: Tax-paying Pennsylvanians who don’t belong to a political party are forced to help pay for an election in which they are not allowed vote.

You can’t vote for candidates Tuesday unless you are a registered member of a political party that has candidates on the ballot.

I wrote a column last year complaining about this injustice that is inflicted on politically independent Pennsylvanians. It’s a system that isn’t going to change anytime soon, because the power-brokers who make the rules are the same people who benefit from taxpayer subsidies of their party’s candidate selection process.

In last year’s column, I wondered whether this arrangement violates Pennsylvania constitution’s requirement of “free and equal” elections. What’s “equal” about an election, funded by tax dollars, where a duly registered voter has no say in which candidate wins?

Now it’s true, as I wrote back then, that the U.S. Supreme Court clearly says political parties have a First Amendment right to determine who may vote in “their” political primaries.

The question is whether political parties [THAT ARE PRIVATE ENTITIES] have a First Amendment right to force you [THE PUBLIC] to pay for their candidate selection process.

I don’t think so.

If you are going to participate in a primary election that you help pay for, you are forced to affiliate with a political party. That violates your First Amendment rights.

Pennsylvania’s closed primary election delivers a tax-subsidized government benefit to two preferred political organizations – the Democratic and Republican parties.

All of us are paying so they can pick their candidate who will enjoy a huge government privilege – one of two guaranteed spots on the general election ballot. (Pennsylvania law also makes it extraordinarily difficult for a third-party to get its candidates on the ballot.)

It doesn’t have to be this way.

California recently adopted a much fairer primary election system by voter initiative.

All candidates of all parties appear on a ballot available to all registered voters within the relevant district. The top two vote getters move on to the general election in the fall. The winners could be two Republicans, or two Democrats, one of each party. A so-called minor party candidate might even win a spot on the fall ballot.

This way, taxpayers are not forced to subsidize a process that’s stacked in favor of two political parties. And it’s clearly constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly saidthat a non-partisan primary that is open to all voters and allocates spots on the general election ballot falls squarely within the First Amendment.

But good luck getting such a system here in Pennsylvania. Unlike in California, the poo-bahs who hold political power in Pennsylvania have denied voters the power to pass their own laws by statewide initiative.

On this one, we have to try to persuade legislators and the governor to do the right thing and reform a system that has put them in power and keeps them there.

I’m not holding my breath.

Matt Zencey is Deputy Opinion Editor of Pennlive and The Patriot-News. Email mzencey@pennlive.com and on Twitter @MattZencey.

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/05/is_pennsylvania_closed_primary.html