The First and Second Amendments mean exactly what they say. You should be able to express whatever you want and you should be able to own any kind of weaponry you want and can afford. End. Of. Fucking. Story.
Milo Yiannopoulos @m Via Gab on August 5, 2019 [I think a good case can be made on restrictions for libel, slander, and incitement to riot/violence. But those exceptions doesn’t make for a good sound bite.—Joe]
You can’t put anything behind you with these people, because there is nothing to put behind you. It’s all a lie. You are not a racist. Your guns won’t hurt anyone but criminals and aspiring tyrants. And the leftists know it. They know they are spewing skeevy slanders, and if you give in on this one – handing over your AR-15 and hanging your head over prejudices you don’t possess – the libs and their newsprint lackeys will just club you with another set of grievances that you can only atone for through further submission.
It will never end. They will always hate you. Always. Nothing you can do will change that. Nothing. So get used to it and invite them to pound sand.
Stand up to them and tell them the adults are in charge. Temper tantrums from people that act like two year old’s and insults from people that act like they are in Junior High will be dealt with appropriately.—Joe]
Items PV3 and PV4 from the CCES involve justifying violence by the inparty to
advance political goals. Terrorism, in other words. PV3 asks about violence today. PV4 asks
for responses if the outparty wins the 2020 presidential election, a hypothetical but realistic
scenario given recent alternation in party control of the presidency. Nine percent of
Republicans and Democrats say that, in general, violence is at least occasionally acceptable. However, when imagining an electoral loss in 2020, larger percentages of both parties
approve of the use of violence – though this increase is greater for Democrats (18 percent
approve) than Republicans (13 percent approve).
When, if ever, is it OK for [Own party] to send threatening and intimidating messages to [Opposing party] leaders?
When, if ever, is it OK for an ordinary [Own party] in the public to harass an ordinary [Opposing party] on the Internet, in a way that makes the target feel unsafe4?
How much do you feel it is justified for [Own party] to use violence in advancing their political goals these days?
What if [Opposing party] win the 2020 presidential election? How much do you feel violence would be justified then?
4 “Unsafe” was replaced with “frightened” in the Nielsen survey.
I’m surprised by two things in this study.
The number of people supporting violent threats and action is higher than I would have thought. I would have expected it to be not over one or two percent for any of the questions for either party. Sure, there are a lot of people advocating violence, but they are just a noisy, extreme, minority, right? Well… maybe not such a small minority after all.
I would have expected a much bigger difference between the Democrats and the Republicans with the Democrats leading by at least a factor of two on every question. Aren’t Republicans the one who follow the process and the rules more so than the outcome?
That nearly one out of six Democrats and one out eight Republicans think violence is justified if the other party wins the presidency in 2020 I’m seriously hoping for a Libertarian win (yeah, right, only if the Democrats and Republicans kill each other off at some extremely drastic rate prior to the election) and planning on avoiding what probably will be “hot spots”.
With that high of percentage of violent people available to surround themselves with people are going to find the courage to “take action”. Regardless of who wins, the 2020 election could just be the spark that ignites CWII.—Joe]
The grand fallacy of the political left is that decisions are better made by third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Much of the 20th century has been taken up proving how tragically mistaken that theory is, all around the world. But those who want to be the third-party decision-makers remain undaunted.
Thomas Sowell March 6, 1999 THOMAS SOWELL: Back again – random thoughts [This is true in economics, personal ethics, self-defense choices, and all but a few special cases mostly covered by the enumerated powers given to the U.S. government in the constitution.
At this point I’m convinced it’s only a fallacy or mistaken belief on the part of the useful and professional idiots. Those who are smart enough to rise and retain political power have to know the truth.
Evidence for making the case for the 21st century will be little different from the 20th is Venezuela.—Joe]
I find present day politics fascinating and scary. For example:
Bloomberg @business tweeted:
An emerging trend in this debate: Kamala Harris very clearly only wants to debate Joe Biden. Every time she’s been challenged by a lower-polling candidate, she takes it back to Biden
In response Ellen Pompeo @EllenPompeo tweeted:
Because she’s overconfident and believes he is her only competition
This was one of the responses:
Let me be very clear this was racist
The consensus appears to agree with the racist declaration despite the fact it is extremely clear there is no racism.
This is political correctness run amok.
I used to wonder how it was possible things could get so messed up in the USSR and Nazi Germany that they could execute people for speaking what most people knew to be the truth. Now I see the virulent roots of this growing in our country.
When those who insist they should have the power to control other people get most of what they want they don’t stop. They find more things and people they must control. In many people it appears hunger for power is never sated. Read The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One). Even when such people have the power to murder others on any imagined slight, and no matter how many they murder, the hunger cannot be satisfied.
Insist they obey the constitution. Vote them out, put adults in charge, and have a backup plan.
the sad reality of the encryption debate is that after 30 years it is finally over: dead at the hands of Facebook. If the company’s new on-device content moderation succeeds it will usher in the end of consumer end-to-end encryption and create a framework for governments to outsource their mass surveillance directly to social media companies, completely bypassing encryption.
In the end, encryption’s days are numbered and the world has Facebook to thank.
The article says WhatsApp will be, or perhaps already has been, compromised by Facebook. Moving to Signal is probably warranted but that is no guarantee of security. Furthermore, I think blaming Facebook for this is a little unfair.
Back when I was working for Pacific Northwest National Labs I suggested the government could add code to whatever O/S a particular set of terrorists were fond of using and then “upgrade” their phone to send duplicate copies of messages, phone calls, and even record conversations when the phone was believed to be “asleep”. To the best of my knowledge the suggestion went nowhere. But that doesn’t mean I was just very late to the game and there was no need to tell me it had already been done.
Similar things can be done to your Windows and/or Apple devices. You upgrade your computers and other communications devices all the time to guard against security vulnerabilities. But how do you know you aren’t also installing a custom version of the O/S dictated to Apple, Google, and/or Microsoft, by government spies?
If you want communication security you will need to make sure your O/S is secure as well as the applications and the channels it transmits over. It’s not an easy thing to ensure.—Joe]
Overarching, and across the world, is the fight over globalism. I’ve said in the end globalism will win, because it’s being driven by technological change at its root. The struggle isn’t whether we have transnational systems where the nation state plays a less important role: that will happen. The struggle is whether globalism will be a democratic movement that is controlled by the people for the people’s benefit, or whether it will be a aristocratic movement that benefits the transnational aristocrats. It’s been set up as the latter, and the people are, across the globe, calling foul.
The struggle over the RKBA is downstream of that fight, but what we’re seeing I think fits in the overall struggle. It’s a theme repeated throughout history that aristocrats do not like their subjects being armed. So it was practically inevitable that when the people started asserting themselves against this cultivated global order, the counter-reaction was the aristocracy returning to their traditional fears and anxieties about armed peasants. That anxiety is acting itself out among the pool of Democratic candidates.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the House Democrats’ powerful campaign arm, has just abruptly purged half a dozen staffers. Why? Because they are white.
It appears that no one had anything against these particular staffers … except for the color of their skin. Although roughly half the committee’s full-time staff (13 of 27) were nonwhite, this was not enough for some Democratic members of Congress. They complained DCCC Chairwoman Cheri Bustos of Illinois had brought in too many white staffers when she won the position. And they put enough pressure on her that she sacrificed her loyal staffers to the god of diversity.
That we have a major political party purging people from jobs because of the color of their skin forebodes some very interesting times ahead. That the people being discriminated against are the majority population is even more interesting. It would seem, long term, that will not end well for the minority engaged in racist discrimination.
if who the president is actually scares you then clearly that office has way too much power
MJ @morganisawizard Tweeted on July 24, 2019
[You would think this is obvious in hindsight and clearly applies equal to any of the half dozen or so political parties I can think of who conceivably could hold the office. But somehow there is a substantial number of people do not think it applies when one of their tribe is in power.
For some reason that scares me as much as the amount of power the president holds. How can people be so blind?—Joe]
Final health insurance rate decisions lower 2020 premiums by $44 million
The Oregon Division of Financial Regulation issued final rate decisions for small businesses and individuals who buy their own health insurance.
“Our collaborative rate review process has been key to building a stable health insurance market that enabled us to limit the individual market rate increase to an average of 1.5 percent,” said Insurance Commissioner Andrew Stolfi. “The Oregon Reinsurance Program has also continued to show its value, keeping individual rates 6 percent lower than they would be without the program. We are grateful to the legislature for passing and our stakeholders for supporting the six year extension of this important program.”
They could have kept the average rate increase even lower had they not insisted that one company increase their rates:
Notice the last row? Regence requested a rate increase of 3.9% with a rate of $445. Oregon decided that wasn’t enough and set the rate they must actually charge customers at $452 which is a 5.5% increase.
So why is the state of Oregon, by force of law, increasing prices to consumers more than that requested by the company providing the service?
One could postulate this is to protect other companies which are unable, or unwilling, to compete at the same price point, $445, as Regence. But BridgeSpan, Kaiser, and PacificSource are all allowed to price their product at or below $445.
I thought government regulation was supposed to be for consumer protection. This looks to me as if it is random exercise of power.
The world in which most liberals live is one of magic and fairytales — where socialist systems have starved millions of people and destroyed every economy forced into its model, but which certainly will work the next time. It is a world in which using fascist tactics to silence opponents actually makes you an anti-fascist; and where presidential candidates can promise everything for everyone, and still have enough money left over to cut taxes. In this fantasy land, anything is possible if you just feel it to be true.
As computers continue to permeate every aspect of our lives, society, and critical infrastructure, it is much more important to ensure that they are secure from everybody — even at the cost of law-enforcement access — than it is to allow access at the cost of security. Barr is wrong, it kind of is like these systems are protecting nuclear launch codes.
That’s why everything has become politicized in the US. Americans have come to see the State as their parent, so they’re constantly pleading with it, like children, asking it for favors and benefits. Like children, they expect the State to magically support them.
They don’t seem to understand that the State isn’t a cornucopia. It’s the opposite. It’s a dangerous parasite. A huge tapeworm in the body of society.
This is what House Democratic leadership fears: that Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad, through their dominance of social media and their centrality on conservative media, will become the faces of the House Democratic majority.
Trump took a fight House Democrats were having with each other and turned it into a fight they are now having with him. In doing, he rallied House Democrats around the Squad, and made himself the Squad’s chief opponent. “The Dems were trying to distance themselves from the four ‘progressives,’ but now they are forced to embrace them,” Trump tweeted. “That means they are endorsing Socialism, hate of Israel and the USA! Not good for the Democrats!”
…the weird poll that Democratic officials apparently leaked to Axios to emphasize the damage Ocasio-Cortez was supposedly doing to the party. The poll was of non-college educated white men, and the post-publication controversy has swirled around whether it’s appropriate to call this group, which went heavily for Trump, “swing voters.”
But more telling was the framing of the poll by whoever leaked it. The Axios headline read “AOC defining Dems in swing states,” even though the results didn’t include any data to that effect. What the poll did show was that 74 percent of the respondents knew of Ocasio-Cortez, and 53 percent knew of Omar. How many other House Democrats have that kind of name recognition?
“If all voters hear about is AOC,it could put the [House] majority at risk,” an anonymous “top Democrat” told Axios. “[S]he’s getting all the news and defining everyone else’s races.”
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly……
….and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how….
….it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
Trump is just castigating them as foreign because he says racist stuff.”
I find it telling that the tweets have to be explained as racists rather than demonstrate the racism directly. Ordinary people can clearly see they aren’t racist. The political left is like a paranoid person who imagine they see “people out to get them” everywhere. Healthy people don’t see the imaginary threats but that doesn’t reassure the paranoid. To the paranoid, as is the case with the political left, they interpret the fact that only they can see the “threat” as proof of their special powers.
With these three tweets President Trump bonded, essentially, all Democrats with “The Squad”. This bonding is a political albatross.
Congresswomen, who I truly believe, based on their actions, hate our Country. Get a list of the HORRIBLE things they have said. Omar is polling at 8%, Cortez at 21%. Nancy Pelosi tried to push them away, but now they are forever wedded to the Democrat Party. See you in 2020!
Tim Pool describes it as 4-D Chess:
Via email from Chet who also asks, in a somewhat different context:
Would it be possible to do this for the first and second amendments? For example coming up with really, really outrageous positions that would distract the opponents of the bill of rights?
The vast population of this earth, and indeed nations themselves, may readily be divided into three groups. There are the few who make things happen, the many more who watch things happen, and the overwhelming majority who have no notion of what happens.
On a good day I watch things happen. To accomplish the analog to President Trump’s manipulation of the Democrats but in defense of the First and Second Amendment is beyond my capacity. Suggestions?—Joe]
Early Saturday morning, that man, Willem Van Spronsen of Vashon Island, returned to the Northwest Detention Center, the holding facility for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, this time armed with a rifle and incendiary devices, according to Tacoma police.
Police said Van Spronsen tossed lit objects at vehicles and buildings, causing one car fire, and unsuccessfully tried to ignite a propane tank.
Officers were called by an ICE employee who saw the rifle. Soon after they arrived, officers reported “shots fired,” said Tacoma police spokeswoman Loretta Cool, although it is unclear who fired first or if Van Spronsen fired at all. The Pierce County Medical Examiner’s Office classified his death as a homicide.
The four responding officers all opened fire and then took cover, uninjured. After medical aid arrived, officers found Van Spronsen dead. He had multiple gunshot wounds, according to the Pierce County Medical Examiner’s office.
We Are The Fire That Will Melt ICE – Rest in power, Will Van Spronsen [Olympia WA]
Early this morning around 4am our friend and comrade Will Van Spronsen was shot and killed by the Tacoma police. All we know about what lead up to this comes from the cops, who are notoriously corrupt and unreliable sources for such a narrative. The story that we do have is that Will attempted to set fire to several vehicles, outbuildings and a propane tank outside the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma which houses hundreds of immigrants awaiting hearings or deportations. He successfully set one vehicle on fire and then exchanged gunfire with Tacoma police officers who fatally shot him. He was pronounced dead on the scene. We find his actions inspiring. The vehicles outside the detention facility are used to forcibly remove people from their homes and deport them, often to situations where they will face severe danger or death. Those vehicles being destroyed is only a start of what is needed. We wish the fires Will set had freed all the inmates and razed the entire Northwest Detention Center to the ground. And we miss our friend and wish from the bottom of our hearts that his action had not ended in his death.
Will Van Spronsen was a long-time anarchist, anti-fascist and a kind, loving person.
He left a letter before executing his attack. It sounds like he was deliberately committing suicide by cop (click to enlarge):
This is totally on the backs of the political left. They are the ones fanning the flames.
The police have been arresting some of these thugs. But I expect the violence will continue to increase until arrests, convictions, and the occasional justified homicides have thinned their ranks much further. It’s too bad the leaders of the political left are not taking legal heat but that’s not the way it works. It’s the useful idiots like the yesterday’s terrorist who pay the ultimate price for the political evil of the left.
But now I recognize, you know, they nearly killed me on the 29th. And I can’t be so naïve as to think that the police will actually be protecting citizens, law abiding citizens, anymore.
The provocation to them can be just existing with the wrong ideas. You saw how they, I mean, it’s still surreal to me to see the mainstream response to the Covington boys. Like this visceral hatred for somebody because of the look on their face or the hat they were wearing.
At an hour and 15 minutes it is a bit long but I found myself drawn more and more into it. The first paragraph of the quote above is at about 59:34 in the video. The second paragraph is from about 1:09:15.
As I listened to the first part of the quote above I immediately thought, “He still has a lot of naivety. The police have never been required to protect people. He needs to read Dial 911 and Die.”
The second paragraph above hit me the hardest with the word surreal. I’ve read a lot of books about the Holocaust, the mass murders of the the USSR, and the genocides of Rwanda, Uganda, Ottoman Turkey, and many others. And three books on what Japan did in Nanking in 1937 and 1938.
Surreal is how many of the people who lived through those horrific events described it as things became more and more deadly. Those people didn’t think it could happen there. But in hindsight they discovered the signs were all there. With refuge parents from South Vietnam Ngo is far less naïve than most but still he has difficulty believing the facts.
It is easy to extrapolate from our present day situation into a horrible nightmare. Don’t let a normalcy bias pull you in too far. Look at the facts and judge them rationally.—Joe]
Twitter has locked my account. I can’t post anything or read messages from other users. The reason? In March, I tweeted that the perpetrator of the New Zealand mosque shooting was “a socialist, environmentalist, who hates capitalists & free trade.” I also wrote that the killer believed his attack would “lead to more gun control” in New Zealand and the United States.
What I tweeted was entirely accurate, and Twitter hasn’t bothered to provide me with an explanation for why they locked my account, but they have made clear that it was this tweet that supposedly violated their terms.
Just as in the USSR and so many other authoritarian countries the truth is no defense. You must also adhere to that which is politically correct or suffer the consequences. In the USSR if you didn’t get a bullet to the back of the head it was five to ten years in the Gulag for expressing an uncomfortable truth which questioned the political narrative. It’s exceedingly clear we have people in this country sharing the belief of their authoritarian brethren that silencing political opponents is appropriate.
Fortunately we don’t have a majority of them in positions of political power such that they can enforce bullets to the back of the head or banishment to Siberian Gulags for expressing the truth in public here.
You have wonder if this is what it was like in the middle 1930’s for minorities in Nazi Germany. There was a double standard enforced by both society and government when laws and social norms were violated. And people just kept accepting the increasing levels of injustice. They must have thought, “This is crazy! It has to get better soon, right?”
No. It doesn’t have to get better from here. Mass hysteria can go to lengths that are unimaginable to people that haven’t lived through it.