I was going to write up a bit about Home World (Book IX of the Mirrors series) being released but we’ll pause that for this:
Absolutely impossible to see where this winds up. It has never happened before – that is, an Executive saying the previous Executive’s actions are invalid. But, also, we’ve never had such a slew of last-minute pardons from an Executive. Given the number, there is no possible way that mentally deficient Biden spent sufficient time reviewing the pardon documents to arrive at a valid decision. This is why some genuine bad guys were allowed to skate; people Biden would never have let off when his mind was functioning. In addition to that, Trump is saying – and there appears to be solid evidence of this – that an autopen was used to sign the documents. Is that valid? Can at least two or three people affirm under oath that Biden was even in the room when the pardons were signed? Maybe a case can be made that an autopen is a legal way to carry out Executive actions…but I can’t see any possible way to say an Executive action can happen if the Executive isn’t even present.
I guarantee you a thrill of fear just went down a lot of backs when Trump posted that. It is completely unknown territory…and a lot of people who were sure they had skated on multiple serious federal crimes now wonder just how safe they are?
Blogs For Victory 
This is probably going to be one of the most Googled articles on the Internet today.
I’ve read several articles about the Autopen, and apparently it’s use has never been challenged in court, in spite of the fact that it’s been in regular use since Truman. I would have thought that there would have been specific rules regarding its use.
A general advisory was issued during GW Bush’s term, but it doesn’t have the power of law. And even then Bush flew back to DC to physically, personally, sign a bill. (A shameful bill, but that’s another story.)
I suspect that when this is addressed by the SCOTUS, which it has to be, it will be looked at in the same way notarized signatures are. That is, to sell a $2000 car I have to have to provide proof of my identity and then sign the title in person, in front of a notary, and have that recorded. For a long time Colorado did not require a notarized signature on a vehicle title, so when I sold a truck I signed the title and then realized it had to be notarized. It took a while to find a notary who would accept a second signature next to the first, signed in front of him but not altering the first, to get it accepted. This was being picky over a minor transaction where I had proof of my identity and could sign an identical signature in front of the notary.
The idea that something as significant as pardons for major crimes, or passage of laws, could be legitimate without proof that the signature was done in person by the named signer is hard to accept. I don’t even buy the argument that it would be OK if the signer knew about and approved of the fake signature—-those are two conditions hard to prove and easy to lie about.
While the Autopen has been, as you say, in regular use since Truman, the question is whether or not it was ever used to “sign” official documents, such as bills passed by Congress, or Executive Orders—-or pardons. The article you linked, which links to an analysis by Terry Turnipseed from back in 2011 about Obama authorizing the use of the Autopen to “sign” a bill while he was in Hawaii, covers it very well. The author cites laws on proxy signatures, and says “The law surrounding proxy signatures has remained amazingly constant through both English and American legal history: The proxy (like the autopen, for instance) and the principal (like the president) must be together when the proxy (the autopen) signs on behalf of the principal (the president). “
Over at Red State Shipwreckedcrew had an article on March 10th noting the firing of the DOJ’s Pardon Attorney – a career position with the person not only fired but escorted from the building…which is what you do if you’re looking into something and don’t want the target to destroy evidence. Something was seriously up about the pardons for a while.
Side note: just love that so much is happening so fast that its impossible for any one person to keep up but that we have such a diverse and decentralized apparatus to pick up on every odd thing happening.
Other people on X are picking up on your notarization – to me, the key points are these:
1. Did Biden know?
2. Was he present when the signature happened?
We might be able to force people to go under oath – with a Trump DOJ watching intently – about whether or not Biden knew and/or was present. More than likely, Trump’s people already know if Biden was present for all of the signatures. There’s a whole lot of people involved in getting a pardon – that attorney at DOJ just being top of the heap on it. But she had staff and the White House had staff and they must have communicated with each other.
Preemptive presidential pardons are supported by the Constitution, but they’re pretty rare. But the number issued by Biden tells you all you need to know about the lawlessness of the Biden Administration. My bet is that a number of those pardoned will eventually be prosecuted in state courts.
The funny thing here is Biden’s mental acuity. The Democrats covered it up as best they could and pretended he was capable…IMO, he wasn’t mentally fit even before the 2020 election…by 2022, he was clearly gaga.
What I’d like to see is a series of FBI interviews, starting with those closest to Biden, on their opinion of his mental state. They’re either going to have to tell the truth that he was senile (and thus lay the groundwork for voiding their own pardons) or lie…in which case, they’ll have committed perjury after the pardon date.
There is an interesting article on how some people determine what is and what is not “racism” and it includes this chart of differing approaches to the decision or perception.
(The author of the article found an error in the book and corrected it.)
I think this chart very clearly and accurately describes the different thought processes of the two different approaches, and this can be applied to pretty much everything that divides them.
Two of the characteristics of the “Convictor” class are perfect examples of the collectivist mindset in action: “pattern matching” instead of examining events case-by-case, which is classic collectivist thinking, and the inference (that is, invention) of bias from “societal tendencies” (as perceived by the person), or judging an individual based on perception of the characteristics of a demographic.
That second characteristic shows the closed loop of the “logic” of this demographic. That is, it perceives “societal tendencies” through the lens of seeing racism, then identifies actions as racist or sexist due to inference of those “societal tendencies” that exist only, or at least primarily, in the mind of the observer. Those “societal tendencies” stem from the refusal to consider alternative explanations other than racism or sexism and are then employed to support the conviction of bias, or implied if not explicit references to race or gender, and then to convict a person based on assumed or perceived membership in a group presumed to be described by the “societal tendencies” assumed by the observer.
And so, round and round it goes, locked into the closed loop thinking of Leftist radicals that makes discourse with them so difficult and unrewarding.
As a woman, I have experienced explicit and implied sexism my whole life, and I can understand how someone who is part of a minority might have experienced racism. As I get older I experience more and more ageism. (As an example, when I chipped a tooth a friend took me to her dentist to have it smoothed out and the receptionist never looked at me and spoke only to my younger friend, although I was the patient, as if I were not there, asking her about me in the third person instead of asking me herself.)
But you know what? It happens. Get over it. “Isms” are not always toxic or dangerous or harmful. There are explicit and implied “isms” every day, and it would be exhausting and counterproductive to become overheated about every one of them. They range from blonde jokes to the man teaching me about navigating shallow SW Florida waters assuming that I can’t handle a small boat though I routinely pulled a 40′ single axle trailer with a 2.5 ton truck over mountain passes and used to own and operate my own road grader.
You deal with an “ism” by either proving it wrong by your actions, or you ignore it and move on. Some “isms” ARE dangerous, to individuals or to society, and they should be identified and dealt with. But fretful or hysterical reactions to every single example, real or perceived, is not productive and has the “boy who cried wolf” effect of making all objections meaningless and easily ignored.
(I remember a time when I was building a large circular driveway in front of my ranch house. This involved removing the overburden, or accumulated soil and vegetation, till I got down to the undisturbed hardpack and then leveling it and creating drainage, to prepare it for road base and packing, and my plan was to pile this removed material in the center of the driveway to create a raised planting area for a tree and rock garden. I was happily working away at this when my vet showed up for an appointment, and he cheerfully said to me “I see you’re playing with (husband’s) tractor”.
I could have gotten angry, or indignant. I just smiled and said, very calmly, “I’m not really playing with it, but building a driveway, and it’s my tractor, not his—but one of these days I might teach him how to operate it”. Point made, relationship with my veterinarian saved, but only possible because (1) I knew there was no malice intended and this was just a rather clumsy effort to make small talk, and (2) I am not and never have been hypersensitive to unintended slights or even to intended but essentially harmless ones.)
Humanity cannot be perfected, and it is a waste of time and energy to try. An “ism” is usually benign, or if less than benign best dealt with by proving it is false.
I found myself nodding throughout the article. Like you, I also notice grammatical errors, and one of the most frequent grammatical errors is the misuse of “you and/or I vs. you and/or me.” Radio and TV news people are guilty of this A LOT, especially using “I” as the object of a preposition. This sentence jumped off the page at me:
But fretful or hysterical reactions to every single example, real or perceived, is not productive and has the “boy who cried wolf” effect of making all objections meaningless and easily ignored.
I heard this story at an early age, and the significance of it was pounded into me by my parents. Today we have millions of people shouting WOLF, WOLF, WOLF, WOLF at the slightest provocation, the accusation of racism being the prime example.
Added to your comments on grammar errors there has to be the misuse of “myself”—-“he told my sister and myself” as an example. It is funny to see the avoidance of the word “me” as if it is simply incorrect, substituting “I” or “myself”, yet then starting a sentence with something like “me and my friend…”
There was a time when educated people wrote books and news stories and articles, and people read them and therefore assimilated knowledge about how words should look and be used. Through context, we learned the difference among “rein” and “rain” and “reign” for example. Today, many books and articles are written by semi-literate people who misuse words, and too few people read enough to recognize how words should look and be used. Add to this the use of voice-to-text and the computer substitution of words and insertion of the Rogue Apostrophe into words like “its” and we end up with gobbledygook.
It’s kind of gratifying that people at least recognize that there ARE rules and try to follow them, delicately using “I” instead of “me” as an example, but it’s sad that they simply don’t know because they have not been taught.
The last thing I would consider myself is a grammar Nazi, but the use of I as the object of a preposition has always bothered me because it’s used by people who should know better, people who speak and write for a living. “Me and him,” I think, is mostly used by people who just don’t know any better; either that’s the way their parents talked, or they simply didn’t pay attention in English class.
Agreed entirely – I’m job-hunting right now at the age of 60 (my former employer decided to consolidate operations in Arizona and I didn’t want to move) and I can feel (as it were) the resistance to hiring the white-haired guy. Its not the interviewers fault so much – but when you’re 30, 60 seems Ancient of Days. All I can do is just deal with it and move on – eventually someone is going to see past the gray hair and realize that for what I do, there’s nobody better.
It’s got to depend on the age of the interviewer. A fairly seasoned person will probably be fed up with the sloppy work ethic of the Millennial work force and be happy to find someone with a more, shall we say, “old fashioned” attitude toward work. At 60 you’ve easily got 15-20 more good years to offer an employer, unless you find early retirement appealing. (And if you do, talk to some retirees who regret quitting as they find it boring to just look for recreation to fill their time.)
It’s very likely that an interviewer will think you only want a job for five years or so, which might influence decisions about hiring. Maybe assurance that you don’t look forward to retirement might help. A lot of interviewers factor assumptions into their decisions, such as “at his age he’ll be quitting in a couple of years” or “at her age she’ll be getting pregnant in a year or so and then we’ll have to deal with that”. Interviewers want stability and consistency and continuity easily as much as they want credentials or even youth.
I was discouraged by friends from using it but I think I will start to lean into my age and experience…you know, I’m the guy who will actually show up and do the work without complaining.
You play to your strengths, especially if they cancel out a perceived weakness. Assuming that the speed bump is your age, and you aren’t spitting chaw into a Mountain Dew can during interviews, I assume that to be your age. Which is, after all, a highly desirable asset you bring to the table. Experience, stability, an expanded skill set, proven work ethic and productivity, etc.
You could write novels, just sayin’.
I’ve been accused of doing that, and calling them “posts”.
LOL – and I am working out towards finding the tools to really advertise it. I think its a great series!
The next up is Of the 15…a post apocalyptic novel (and, perhaps) series. I’ve created a very stratified society … the Ruling Class being descended from the original 15 founders of the city-State which is on a largish island in a freshwater sea. Those who are nearly entirely descended from the 15 (ie, at least 6 out of 8 great-grandparents are pure-blood descendants of the 15) control the Executive and the Judiciary and exercise partial control over the Legislative. A commercial city, most people make their money in trade – with most food staples imported from the coastal communities around the freshwater sea. Three classes of citizens: first class is Of the 15, second class is mixed descent (those having only 5 or fewer great-grandparents who are Of the 15) and third class are the Outsiders (people with 3 or fewer great-grandparents Of the 15). The very top of the socio-politico heap are the Duke and the Sacred Council (of 11, who choose the Duke upon the death of the previous holder; all of these people, naturally, must be Of the 15). Tech level: 12th century.
It all works pretty well though, of course, if you aren’t Of the 15 then you’d better not offend those who are. Our hero (who is mixed…but only because of a few lies told before he was born; he’s actually the illegitimate son of the previous Duke), of course, does run afoul of them…but he doesn’t know why. All he did was find this odd metal plate with a strange thing drawn on it. He’s jailed and then exiled.
And then he finds out just what is on that metal plate and just what secret only the Duke and the Sacred Council know…and that doom impends for everyone if this secret isn’t exposed! Should be a cracker jack of a story!
To borrow one of our new cliches, this article, One People, One Responsibility: Erasing the Hamas Mask, “says the quiet part out loud”.
The article is, as usual from this source, extremely well thought-out and written and addresses the truth many of us have known all along but which is not popular in some circles. And it explains why so many of us are not getting the vapors from clearing Gaza and rebuilding it. I don’t even think any of the inhabitants should be allowed back in.
This is a self-perpetuating cancer of character, and perhaps if these people are scattered among civilized people and the constant validation of and celebration of this kind of insanity is diluted there is hope that some of the people might mellow a little, or at least not teach their children to follow in their footsteps.
Perhaps—but Israel should not have to take that risk.
A funny comment on the Elon Musk rescue mission of the two stranded astronauts:
A federal district judge on the Epstein client list has just ordered Elon to return them to space immediately.
This Is No Time To Blackpill