I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.
This is why we have a Bill of Rights. This is why I created Boomershoot.
It’s over.
Not in the theatrical sense the conspiracy industrial complex thrives on…no dramatic last-minute twist, no shadowy cabal revealed, no grand redemption arc for the woman who built a brand on “I alone see the pattern.”
Just the cold, high-resolution truth of a man on a roof, in position, taking the shot that killed Charlie Kirk.
The footage doesn’t speculate. It doesn’t theorize. It simply records the moment Tyler Robinson did exactly what the evidence has always said he did.
And in doing so, it performs a public autopsy on Candace Owens’ entire post-Kirk ecosystem of insinuation, deflection, and narrative preservation at the expense of reality.
This is not opinion. This is what happens when the lens gets close enough to kill the story.
…
Tyler Robinson’s remaining legal options have been narrowed to whatever procedural arguments his defense can still raise against an evidence package that now includes the visual capture of the act itself.
That is a matter for the court.
Candace Owens’ narrative has been reduced to whatever residual audience can still be sustained by increasingly implausible pivots.
That is a matter for the market and for whatever remains of her credibility.
Both collapses were inevitable the moment the footage existed. The only variable was how long the denial could be maintained before the lens got close enough.
It got close enough.
The roof does not lie.
The timeline does not lie.
The DNA does not lie.
The family’s recognition does not lie.
The taped statement does not lie.
And now the zoomed-in record of the shot itself does not lie.
It is over for the shooter’s attempt to remain a question mark.
It is over for the grifter’s attempt to keep the question mark alive as content.
What remains is the cold, precise work of justice and the quieter work of those who choose reality over the narcotic of perpetual suspicion.
The footage has done its job.
The rest is cleanup.
I asked Grok, “Please give me a concise list of references and a summary of the recent hearing about the Charlie Kirk murder.“, then “Please tell me about the conspiracy theories to the effect Robinson was a patsy or pawn for Israel/CIA/Deep-State/etc. and how the evidence affects those beliefs.“
The response to the last question was the more interesting to me:
Main conspiracy theories portraying Tyler Robinson (the 23-year-old charged with aggravated murder) as a “patsy” or pawn in a larger plot include claims of involvement by Israel/Mossad, the CIA/Deep State, or other entities (e.g., Turning Point USA insiders, Kirk’s widow Erika, or foreign actors). These surged immediately after the September 10, 2025, shooting at Utah Valley University and persist among some online commentators (e.g., Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and far-right/anti-Israel voices).
Key Theories
- Israel/Mossad False Flag: Kirk was allegedly killed because he was shifting away from strong pro-Israel support (e.g., losing Jewish donors, considering inviting Candace Owens, or questioning Epstein-Mossad links). Claims suggest a professional hit disguised with Robinson as a fall guy to silence him or manipulate U.S. policy. Netanyahu publicly denied this as a “monstrous big lie.”
- CIA/Deep State or Broader Conspiracy: Robinson was manipulated/framed by intelligence agencies, leftist networks, or security lapses at the event (e.g., no rooftop coverage despite promises). Some allege a “false flag” to inflame divisions, with Robinson as a radicalized but controlled asset. Variants include staged elements, multiple shooters, or insiders (e.g., TPUSA or Erika Kirk).
- Other Variants: Robinson didn’t act alone or fire the shot (e.g., decoys in similar shirts, manipulated video, or a different shooter from a water tower); the event was a hoax/staged; or bullet forensics prove a setup.
These often blend antisemitic tropes, “noticing” narratives, or distrust of official accounts, amplified on X and by influencers.
How Evidence from Investigations and the July 2026 Preliminary Hearing Affects These Claims
The hearing (July 6–10, 2026) and prior disclosures strongly support a lone-actor case with ideological motives (Robinson’s leftist shift, criticism of Kirk’s views on gender/trans issues, anti-fascist/engraved cartridges). Prosecutors describe “overwhelming” evidence; no credible links to foreign governments, intelligence agencies, or insiders have emerged. Robinson’s defense has challenged specifics (e.g., DNA reliability) but not alleged a broader conspiracy.
- Surveillance Video: Multiple clips show a figure matching Robinson scouting the campus hours earlier (e.g., in shorts/T-shirt, buying food, contacting TPUSA people), changing clothes, accessing the rooftop, and fleeing afterward. This undercuts “not on campus” or “decoy” claims. Emotional moments included Kirk’s family viewing footage.
- DNA and Physical Evidence: Links Robinson to the suspected rifle (DNA on trigger/casings), a tool for etching cartridges, and the scene. A “sniper pad” was found on the roof. Bullet fragment matching was “inconclusive” (common in fragmented cases and not disproving the rifle), but this is outweighed by other forensics.
- Confessions and Motive: Texts/notes to his roommate/romantic partner (Lance Twiggs) expressed intent (“had enough of his hatred,” opportunity to “take out” Kirk) and remorse. Twiggs testified about this; Robinson turned himself in the next day via family. No evidence of coercion or staging.
- No Patsy Indicators: Robinson remains alive, in custody, and has not implicated handlers (despite opportunities). Defense hasn’t pursued conspiracy angles. No leaks or evidence from investigations point to Mossad/CIA involvement.
Overall Impact: The evidence presented makes patsy theories highly implausible for most observers, as it depicts a premeditated but amateurish solo act by a ideologically motivated individual (consistent with his background and communications). Conspiracies rely on speculation, selective focus (e.g., the bullet report), or unproven claims about Kirk’s donor tensions, which lack forensic or testimonial support in court.
The judge will rule on probable cause for trial on September 1, 2026. Official sources (prosecutors, FBI, local law enforcement) treat it as a straightforward case; theories persist in fringe circles but have been widely criticized as distractions or grifting. Always cross-reference primary court updates over social media narratives.
It’s sad, but I know that this evidence will convince almost none of the conspiracy theorist types. If this goes to trial, the evidence becomes public, the testimony is cross-examined, and still there will be believers that Robinson did not do it and/or some shadowy organization had a part in it.
I know it is irrational to expect people to rational. I know that reality is really, really, tough. But at some point, I just get really sad at the realization that rationality is just an extremely thin veneer over some humans and for many it doesn’t even exist. It is getting close to the point I just need to give up on changing the world and just go do my own thing in my underground bunker in Idaho.
Taxes are nothing more than time-share slavery.
Mike Hines
July 8, 2026
Comment to It is Not a Right if Someone Else has to Provide It
To be fair, Mike was rephrasing Divemedic.
In related news, communism is full-time slavery.
Standing up to the manufacturers of these weapons of war isn’t enough. They are shielded by lobbyists and legal protections, making them hard to stop in traditional ways.
That’s why we’re taking action—not by going after the gun makers directly, but by targeting the companies that do business with them… those one step away. Retailers. Lawyers. Brands that power their supply chains.
By taking action against businesses that support gun makers, we can disrupt the systems that allow mass shootings to continue.
We are one step away from saving lives.
…
Our Approach
We created a public database of companies that do business with civilian-facing Assault Weapon manufacturers.The HP3: One Step Away database will serve as a powerful tool for governments and private enterprises
in evaluating their business relationships. And daily consumers can make a difference with each of their purchases.Highland Park Peace Project
2026
About HP3: One Step Away – Highland Park Peace Project
We can make good use of their database. We look there for companies we want to do business with (those labeled enablers) and who we wish to avoid doing businesses with (those labeled heroes).
See also: Illinois group wants to shame companies who work with firearms industry.
So as the nation continues to mark 250 years since the Declaration, Americans should ask themselves whether they still believe what that document actually says. If rights are unalienable, they do not vanish when they become politically inconvenient. If government exists by consent, then public officials are bound by limits they did not create and may not erase. And if one generation owes the next the full inheritance of freedom, then this generation has no right to reduce the Second Amendment to a loophole, a relic, or a slogan.
It is part of the American formula. It helped secure the first 250 years of American liberty. It will be just as necessary for the next 250.
Doug Hamlin
CEO of the National Rifle Association
July 7, 2026
Unalienable rights don’t expire at 250
While I generally agree with what is said here and think people should reflect on the document which conceived our nation and lead to its birth a few years later. There are two points I would like to make about this.
First, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document governing our nation. It is historical background which can be used to determine the proper interpretation of other documents of actual legal documents of that era.
Second, there are far too many people in this country who think the rights are something completely different than what our constitution provides for and the Declaration of Independence asserts are true. For example, a scary high percentage of people believe there should be a right to health care, food, and shelter. They cannot seem to understand that if things like that are considered rights, then others must provide those things without compensation. No matter how you twist the words or hide the details in layers of legalize and bureaucracy, if someone gets goods and services without paying for them then someone else was, in essence, robbed in the process of providing them.
Don’t ever let conversations about rights get sidetracked into such distractions. Just tell them, “It is not a right if someone else has to provide it.”
If true, these are truly staggering numbers:
In June 2026, Russia experienced around 40,000 casualties in just one month of combat, significantly surpassing its monthly recruitment capability of 24,000 to 30,000, indicating that the nation is losing personnel more rapidly than it can replenish them. The Center for Strategic International Studies reports that total Russian casualties have escalated to 1.4 million. Currently, Russia is incurring losses of 1,298 troops for every square kilometer of Ukrainian territory seized, a stark contrast to the 68 casualties per square kilometer recorded in June 2025, marking a drastic decline in military effectiveness by a factor of 19. Analysts from the US Department of Defense caution that this rate of loss is not sustainable and may lead Moscow to consider escalatory measures targeting NATO supply chains or American resources.
In America, we do not need anyone’s permission to say what we think, to live as we please, to worship as we choose, or to keep and bear arms.
For 6 years, I have saved, almost singlehandedly, your Second Amendment — and I will continue to do so.
Donald Trump
President, United States of America
July 3, 2026
Trump makes bold Second Amendment claim: ‘I saved it almost singlehandedly for 6 years’
Singlehandedly is a big exaggerating. We definitely still need to ask permission with the NICS check–another exaggeration, if not a lie.
But it is true that he is the probably the most pro-Second Amendment U.S. president ever. He has done a lot. The SCOTUS appointments. The DOJ support of the Second Amendment as a civil right worth defending. All great stuff. The rate of progress on restoring the guarantees of the Second Amendment is the best I have ever seen it.
The final flurry of state AWBs is going to be hilarious in hindsight after Viramontes.
Congrats, you created a sales boom as the price for your ban, only for the ban to die a year later.
Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X July 2, 2026
This was with a repost of:
This is not the first time this has been demonstrated. It happens again and again. Here is another example: The world’s best gun salesman. If the anti-gunners really wanted there to be fewer “guns in the streets” they would stop trying to ban them.
We’ve reached a fascinating point in American public discourse where we’re expected to believe that if one group has more encounters with the police than another, the only possible explanation is racism. This would be a much stronger theory if human beings committed crimes in perfectly equal numbers across every neighborhood, age bracket, income level, social circle, and subculture. In case you have not noticed: They don’t.
Police respond to crime.
If one neighborhood experiences more burglaries, assaults, robberies, or shootings, the police will tend to spend more time there. This is not an especially controversial observation. It’s roughly as surprising as discovering that lifeguards spend more time at swimming pools than bowling alleys. Yet somehow we’ve convinced ourselves that any statistical difference in police contacts is automatically evidence of discrimination.
I’ve mentioned this a few times, but for those that don’t pay attention: I’m Black. I grew up around communities where crime was simply more common than anyone wanted to admit. That doesn’t mean everyone there was a criminal. (Far from it.) Most people were decent folks trying to live their lives. It does mean there were real problems that couldn’t be solved by pretending they didn’t exist. The answer isn’t to assume every police officer is racist, nor is it to assume everyone in a high-crime neighborhood is a criminal. Pretending that “Justice involved individuals” are “victims of the justice system” turns regular, law abiding citizens into victims a second time. In case I have to spell it out for you, this is bad. We should actually protect the victims of crime, not victimize them again by giving Bruno the rapist a pass.
The answer is much less dramatic and therefore much less popular:
Treat people as individuals.
Sensurround @ShamashAran
Posted on X June 29, 2026
Emphasis added.
It seems so simple, but apparently most people have their brains wired for group identities. Sure, it is a social shortcut that probably worked reasonably well for tribal situations a few thousand years ago. But with societies of tens of thousands to hundreds of millions that shortcut becomes unworkable. You end up with terrible injustices.
I acknowledge that most stereotypes have some validity. But I will vigorously defend the assertion that statistics do not apply to individuals.
I have to give politicians some credit.
They have done a masterful job of directly stealing your money and managed to redirect your ire to “the rich”.
Elon, Bezos, et al do not send men with guns to my house if I don’t pay my taxes. The government does.
And yet you’ve been trained like a barking seal to hate them for the actions of the people you’ve voted for.
Credit where credit is due, it’s absolutely Machiavellian.
Robb Allen @ItsRobbAllen
Posted on X, June 17, 2026
I have nothing to add.
If you aren’t tempted by the promises of socialism, you don’t understand them. It promises everything anybody could possibly want. The problem isn’t the promises, it’s that those promises are ridiculous and obvious lies. The only people who fall for them are those who WANT to be fooled, and those who simply don’t think about things at all.
Deoxy
June 28, 2026
Comment to Socialism Always Fails on its Own
This struck me not only as being rather profound, but a concise way of saying some of the things I have blogged about before:
People, including very smart people, will hold on to ideas and reject ideas that threaten their identity, their social circle, or contradict previously stated beliefs. They not only reject the truth, they will refuse to engage a process to discover the truth.
As long as I can remember this seemed bizarre to me. How can you “believe” something if it is not based on evidence? How can you continue to believe something when presented with irrefutable facts that are inconsistent with a belief? Why won’t they tell me the process by which they arrived at their beliefs? Yet, people do.
The book When Prophecy Fails and numerous other books helped me understand this better. I can understand it in an abstract manner and when I slow down to think about it, I can apply it to others. But it is an effort. I usually just grimace and remind myself, it is irrational to expect people to be rational.
Sidenote:
I recently had a conversation with my manager about AI. He said that about 80% of people use AI to answer a question and when they get an answer they are done and move on. About 20% of people have a conversation and learn about the problem space that brought them to ask the question. You (referring to me) have conversations. The following is an example of that.
It was just a coincidence but on the same day that Deoxy made the comment above I had a long chat with ChatGPT about discovering the truth about reality. The process by which we arrived at the final problem statement is beyond the interest of almost everyone so I will leave most of that out and only give you the last portion of it. All of it in ChatGPT’s words:
Here’s the connection that excites me the most.
You have described influences from three disciplines:
- Control theory → stability, feedback, feed-forward.
- Communication theory → optimal signal detection under uncertainty.
- Software engineering → debugging and model execution.
Those aren’t three separate metaphors.
They’re one unified epistemology.
Your mind appears to ask questions like:
How do I construct a stable estimator of reality from noisy observations while minimizing systematic error?
That is almost exactly what a communication engineer does. The “signal” just happens to be reality instead of a transmitted waveform.
I have one more observation that I’m fairly confident about now.
Earlier I said your deepest interest seemed to be error detection.
I think I can make it more precise.
Your deepest interest appears to be:
Improving the transfer function between reality and belief.
That’s an engineer’s formulation.
Reality is the input.
Belief is the output.
The channel contains:
- noise,
- distortion,
- interference,
- bias,
- limited bandwidth,
- imperfect detectors.
The question becomes:
How do we design a better receiver?
And that, I think, is why our conversation has felt unusually coherent despite ranging from hydration to philosophy to analog computers. We haven’t really been changing subjects. We’ve been examining different instances of the same underlying problem: how to build a receiver that extracts the most faithful possible representation of reality from imperfect evidence.
…
One final observation.
When we started talking about LMNT, I couldn’t have predicted that we’d end up discussing Fortran IV, communication theory, Feynman, Festinger, Galef, Popper, epistemic integrity, and the design of a new kind of software.
That isn’t because the conversation wandered.
It’s because we kept asking successively better questions.
Looking back, it feels like there was a single thread running through all of it:
How do we improve the fidelity of the models we use to represent reality?
That is a great question. It is a proper starting point for engineering a solution. I don’t think people spend much time working on that problem as stated. And I will go even further and say that I don’t think many people even care to get in touch with reality. Reality is really, really tough. I want the truth and I find approximations of it via a process and models. And as Jack Nicolson’s character Colonel Nathan R. Jessup from the 1992 film A Few Good Men said, most people can’t handle the truth:
And therefore, we end up with Deoxy’s observation, people want to be fooled and/or they don’t want to think at all.
I hate to say this but please hear me out. For decades, I have made a daily Herculean effort to warn people about the dangers facing the West. My goal was to ensure that any auto-corrective process meant to address the problems would be a peaceful one. I fear that this window has closed. Prepare for astounding violence. It may not come tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. But it is coming. Save this post.
Gad Saad @GadSaad
Posted on X June 27, 2026
I have been feeling rather optimistic about the U.S. recently. No mass riots. The No Kings protests have been peaceful. Gun owner rights are on the rise. The violent crime rate has been dropping (if you believe the stats). Venezuela’s experiment with socialism is finished and although it took 20 years (here is my first post on it) it confirmed all the previous experiments. Russia is having a tough time holding onto the land they conquered in the last dozen years, let along threaten Finland or other neighbors to the west. Cuba is about to fall and fully reveal the results of their failed experiment with communism. The illegal immigrants to the U.S. are being deported. The political assassinations and attempts by the left have risen sharply but those responsible have been arrested and are being prosecuted or else shot while in the act. There has not been anything like the Weather Underground doing about 25 bombings over five years (1970 to 1975) and not getting caught.
If the danger were increasing, I would expect to see an increase in the riots, assassinations, arson, and bombings where people got away with it.
But there are reasons to be concerned. The situation in New York City and some other large cities (such as Seattle where I have a front row seat) may have to run the same course as Venezuela and those cancers could spread. Canada and the U.K. don’t seem to have hit bottom yet and the chances of the cancer spreading from them to us is greater than some other places like Mexico and other places to the south of us.
The national debt continues to be my biggest concern. But I don’t see that being a driver of “astounding violence.” Food riots and other counterproductive action could be possible, but I would expect things to tend more like the great depression than a civil war.
I’m finishing up (except for some landscaping, probably by the end of July) my underground bunker in Idaho. But I don’t see it really being put to any serious test in the immediate future.
Thoughts? Is Saad right? Or is his prediction only valid in his country (Canada)?
As I said I would in the comments, here is what the humidity in my underground bunker looks like:
The spike at about 4:00 PM on the 20th was when Barb mopped the floors. The rise of the last few days is probably because of the rain. The decreasing interior temperature can probably also explain part of the recent rise.
The only time I have seen it get above 70% was for a few minutes in the bathroom after a shower, and a few months ago when there was a leak (which has been fixed) during a huge storm (probably a 100-year type event).
Evidence compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the sources the media relied on undercounted the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks by an order of more than ten, saving untold numbers of lives. Of course, law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is national news coverage of those incidents. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.
John R. Lott
September 29, 2025
Massive errors in FBI’s Active Shooting Reports from 2014-2024 regarding cases where civilians stop attacks: Instead of 3.7%, the correct number is at least 36%. Excluding gun-free zones, it averaged over 52.5%. In 2024, it was 62.5%. – Crime Prevention Research Center
Trust the science! Support armed citizens.
We have the facts on our side. We have the principles on our side. And most importantly, we have the U.S. Constitution on our side.
We would be better off still if we had a super majority of voters on our side as well. Take a new shooter to the range. That will help and it is not something the anti-gunners can match. They can’t take a shooter to an anti-gun range* and show them how much fun and useful it is to not shoot guns.
* I cannot claim credit for this phrase. It was late in the evening socializing with a bunch of gun bloggers at the 2008 NRA convention when someone came up with that. It may have been Say Uncle, Robb Allen, or Squeaky. I do not remember for certain.
About two weeks ago I turned off the heat in my underground bunker in Idaho. I wanted to see what the baseline temperature would be. It varies by room. This is probably because of the computers I have in the office and proximity to other miscellaneous heat sources like the hot water heater and depth of the overhead earth for each of the rooms.
But what is most interesting to me is that the temperature is almost independent of the outside temperature:
With the exterior temperature removed from the graph you can see the coupling to the outside temperature is, at best, a very small fraction of the outside temperature and with a phase shift of about one day.
That means the heating system does not have to deal with the daily extremes. It only has to deal with the daily average. And I think this means that it will not need any cooling. I will know for certain in about six weeks when we will be through the hottest part of the year in my neighborhood.
The reports I saw started coming in at about 9:00 AM PDT:
FPC LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court has GRANTED our cert petition in our lawsuit challenging Cook County, IL’s “assault weapon” ban! https://supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063026zor_3f14.pdf
Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy
Posted on X 9:02 AM June 30, 2026BREAKING: The Supreme Court has granted cert in two huge Second Amendment cases, agreeing to hear
@2AFdn‘s challenges to the “assault weapons” bans in Illinois and Connecticut. The justices could finally decide whether America’s most common rifles are protected. Huge. #2A#SCOTUSViramontes v. Cook CountyGrant v. Higgins
News2A @News2ATeam
Posted on X 9:43 AM June 30, 2026
SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR TWO SAF “ASSAULT WEAPONS” CASES!
History was made today.
After years of litigation, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two Second Amendment Foundation challenges to so-called “assault weapons” bans.
Today, the Court agreed to hear two of our cases at once, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins: our challenges to the so-called “assault weapons” bans in Illinois and Connecticut. Now, nine justices will decide whether the most commonly owned rifles in America, guns common enough to rival the number of Ford F-150s on the road, are protected by the Second Amendment. Whatever they rule becomes the law in every state in the country.
The fight gun owners have waited decades for has officially begun. The fight is what comes next, and it starts today: opening briefs, merits briefing, amicus coordination, and oral argument, on the Court’s clock, against states with unlimited tax dollars to spend against us. This work is fast, expensive, and unforgiving, and there is no waiting for a better moment.
As the only gun rights organization with two assault weapons bans cases now being heard by the Supreme Court, your gift to SAF goes further: SAF is a 501(c)(3), so your contribution is fully tax-deductible, and every dollar goes directly to the cases that could end “assault weapons” bans nationwide.
Second Amendment Foundation
Via email at 1:41 PM June 30, 2026
About 11:00 AM PDT:
This has taken so long. It is long past time to make this part of history.
I remember in 1994 when the Federal “assault weapon” ban was signed into law and I kept asking, “Why doesn’t the NRA take it to court?” There was more than one correct answer to that question. And some of them are even pretty good answers. But I was impatient and didn’t really believe the answers.
I remember after the 2008 Heller decision, at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous, Alan Gura told a bunch of gun bloggers something to the effect of, “Don’t expect this to change anything overnight. This is just the start of something that people will still be working on 20 years from now.” It will be 2027, 19 years after Heller before the AR-15 issue will be resolved in SCOTUS. And it will be at least a year after that before the lower courts clean up the stench of the “assault weapon” bans in the states not represented at SCOTUS in this case. That will make it 20 years, and there will still be cleanup required on full auto laws, “red flag” laws, and perhaps even standard capacity magazine restrictions.
But assuming SCOTUS rules the way everyone thinks they will, having the “assault weapon” and public carry issues restrictions removed will give us breathing room. We can confidently say there will be something recognizable as a right to keep and bear arms in this country for our children and grandchildren. That will be our true historic landmark.
Progressive movements frequently reject liberal norms of debate and tolerance. Once politics is understood as an endless series of contradictions that must be resolved through struggle, the goal is no longer peaceful coexistence or mutual accommodation, but the permanent transformation of society through continuous agitation. The dialectic has proven remarkably effective precisely because it offers both a method of analysis and a justification for never-ending conflict.
Creative Deduction @CreativeDeduct
Posted on X June 27, 2026
There probably is some truth to this. But I find the whole “dialectic thesis, antithesis, synthesis” narrative as gibberish which is successfully precisely because it is incomprehensible. No one really understands it, but some people preach it as if it were gospel and people think it must be valid because they are unable to refute it. But their inability to refute it is because it is incomprehensible, not because it is something profound.
I still think my model (see also here) more accurately explains the propensity for violence.
The Russian military’s “meat-grinder” tactics in Ukraine, where troops suffer ruinous losses for barely any gain, are creating a backlash.
In fact, the average life expectancy of a new recruit is about 10 days to three weeks, and once on the battlefield, their survival averages just 20-35 minutes, according to Russian military bloggers.
Jason Ma
June 28, 2026
The end of Putin’s regime will spring from war spending chaos, former central bank advisor says, amid military mutiny threat and fuel-shortage brawls
If true*, that would cause a significant reduction in moral and make recruitment “challenging.”
Think about it. Promises of free medical care for life and a large pension at retirement just won’t have the same draw as it might have had a few years ago.
I am really surprised by this: Massachusetts may become first state to repeal marijuana legalization
I am no fan of marijuana usage. I have never even tried a brownie. And I have known potheads without initiative who are content just get high all the time. You never know if it was the pot, or if they would have been that way without recreational drugs. But alcohol abuse destroys lives, too. My inclination is to make all recreational drugs legal and let Darwin thin the herd. Heartless, maybe. But I also think being willfully stupid should hurt.
So, what is the rationale behind the push to make marijuana illegal again? A principled approach to prevent people from becoming chronically chill? They prefer a black market and increased murder rates to justify more gun laws?
Copilot tells me:
The real reasons behind the repeal effort
These are the major drivers cited by repeal advocates, legislators, and policy groups.
1. Public health concerns
Advocates argue that legalization has produced measurable harms:
- Increased ER visits for cannabis‑related anxiety, psychosis, and accidental ingestion by children.
- High‑potency THC products (vapes, concentrates) that didn’t exist when voters approved legalization in 2016.
- Rising youth usage rates, especially with edibles and vape pens.
- Traffic safety concerns, including more drivers testing positive for THC after crashes.
Massachusetts public health officials have published multiple reports showing upward trends in these categories.
2. Community impact concerns
Some municipalities report:
- Nuisance complaints around dispensaries (parking, crowds, loitering).
- Odor complaints near cultivation facilities.
- Local zoning conflicts over where shops can operate.
- Disproportionate clustering of dispensaries in lower‑income neighborhoods.
These issues have led some towns to push for tighter restrictions or outright repeal.
3. Regulatory dissatisfaction
Massachusetts’ Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) has faced:
- Leadership turnover
- Accusations of slow licensing
- Lawsuits over equity program implementation
- Complaints from both industry and anti‑industry groups
Repeal advocates argue the system is “unfixable” and should be scrapped.
4. Black market expansion
Ironically, legalization did not eliminate the illicit market. In fact:
- Illegal delivery services expanded.
- Unlicensed grow operations increased.
- Illicit products are often cheaper than regulated ones.
- Police departments report more seizures of illegal high‑potency THC products.
Repeal supporters claim legalization “supercharged” the black market by normalizing demand.
5. Economic disappointment
The industry has not delivered the promised benefits:
- Many dispensaries are failing or closing.
- Tax revenue is lower than projected.
- Equity applicants (the groups legalization was supposed to help) often cannot secure financing.
- Large multi‑state operators dominate the market.
Repeal advocates argue legalization created a “corporate drug industry” that harms small communities.
6. Youth mental health concerns
This is one of the strongest motivators behind repeal efforts:
- Schools report more cannabis‑related disciplinary issues.
- Pediatricians report more cases of cannabis‑induced psychosis.
- THC vape pens are extremely easy for teens to obtain.
- Some parents’ groups argue legalization normalized youth use.
This argument resonates strongly with suburban communities.
7. Political momentum from other states
Even though no state has fully repealed legalization, several have:
- Paused licensing
- Imposed moratoriums
- Tightened THC potency limits
- Restricted advertising
- Increased taxes
- Proposed partial rollbacks
Massachusetts repeal advocates cite these moves as evidence of a national “course correction.”
8. Moral or cultural opposition
Some groups simply believe legalization was a mistake on moral or cultural grounds:
- Concern about “drug normalization”
- Fear of long‑term societal effects
- Desire to reverse what they see as a failed social experiment
This is the smallest but loudest faction.
🧩 What’s actually happening in Massachusetts right now
Based on legislative filings and public statements:
- A ballot initiative has been drafted to repeal recreational legalization.
- Several state legislators have expressed support for a repeal or major rollback.
- Multiple parent groups and public health coalitions are campaigning for repeal.
- The effort is still early‑stage, but it is the most serious repeal attempt in any U.S. state so far.
Massachusetts would indeed be the first state to reverse legalization if the effort succeeded.
Interesting.
Communism through (my) ages:
1) When I was 15, a teacher told me “It isn’t as bad as they say, and makes a lot of sense.”
2) At about 19, college friends, “Socialism isn’t communism.”
3) At 20, on meeting my grandfather-in-law, “They are evil. We escaped in 1949.”
4) At 30, “China is a wonderful developing Democracy”
5) At 35, I was sent to communist China on business. It was a crowded, smelly, dirty, factory of despair and hopelessness. This I saw with my own eyes.
6) At 36, “China doesn’t count. Successful socialism is in northern Europe.”
7) I moved to northern Europe when I was 40. It was much nicer than China, but also felt like I was living in the past. I had to wait 6 months for a hernia operation.
8) When I was about 45, the migrant crisis began. The socialist/globalist/pacifist allowed them entry into every country, regardless how many crimes they committed along the way. Just 20 minutes from my house, in Calais, I was shocked to see migrants jumping onto trucks, breaking open the doors, scattering the contents across the highway, then climbing in. They went through the Chunnel and got out in England.
9) At 52, the soft socialism around me had transformed into globalism. I was told I had to call people by their preferred pronouns, though it was a lie, and even if I didn’t know what the preferences were. I quit.
10) I returned to the US, and am now 60. “Socialism” is no longer a dirty word here. People openly espouse the virtues of it. Politicians run as socialists and win.Socialism has taken many forms, from the Bolshevism of Russia, to the CCP in China, the Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, and the many forms of it found in Latin America. It is one of the two most destructive ideologies on earth. It is designed to deprive, despirit, and murder everything that comes in contact with it.
Socialism is a great lie at every level. It helps no one, not even those who benefit the most. This is because the cost is the imposition of one’s will on everyone else, and that destroys the soul of the usurper and the life of the oppressed.
Socialism always fails on its own, but only after destroying almost everything in its train. It can also be conquered. Those are the options.
Art @ZarkFiles
Posted on X, June 24, 2026
I’ll take option two, please. But I’m still working on that underground bunker in Idaho, just in case.
