Several officials even suggested that Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent.
If they had not taken the nukes from Ukraine initially, the entire mess might have been avoided.
Look at what happened to the American Indians, the German Jews, etc. The examples are endless. Never give up your right to self-defense or your weapons.
Dude… If they actually did this, and have that massive of a roll back of government regulation and power, it would be one of the most important things in American history.
I don’t think most people grasp just how awful Chevron was, and how it empowered the government to meddle in literally everything.
SCOTUS just kicked Chevron in the junk, which enabled people to push back against government regulation, but we all expected the government to fight back and cling to power every expensive and time consuming step of the way. Having the government actually curtail itself? That would be astounding.
I agree with Correia with special emphasis on the “if”.
Here’s a key point about our mission at DOGE: eliminating bureaucratic regulations isn’t a mere policy preference. It’s a legal mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court:
West Virginia v. EPA (2022) held that agencies cannot decide major questions of economic or political significance without “clear congressional authorization.” This applies to thousands of rules that never passed Congress.
In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the Court ended Chevron deference, which means agencies can’t foist their own interpretations of the law onto the American people. Over 18,000 federal cases cited the Chevron doctrine, often to uphold regulations, many of which are now null & void.
In SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), SCOTUS restricted the use of “administrative law judges” by agencies. The same agency that wrote the rules shouldn’t be able to prosecute citizens in “courts” that it controls.
In Corner Post v. Board of Governors (2024), the Court held that new businesses can challenge old regulations, greatly expanding the statute of limitations & opening many more rules up for scrutiny. So we shouldn’t just look at rules passed in the last 4 years, but over the past 4 decades (or more).
DOGE is ready help the U.S. government conform to the U.S. Constitution once again. @elonmusk and I are ready to serve.
That is a really big IF. I can believe the intention is there. I can believe they are the best people for the job. I am not convinced they will overcome the incredible resistance they will encounter. This resistance may even include assassination attempts.
Who would have guessed lying about Biden’s cognitive health for 2 yrs, refusing to do an open convention for a new nominee, never mentioning public healthcare & embracing fracking, the Cheneys & a yr long slaughter of children in Gaza wouldn’t be a winning strategy?
Anyone with half a brain? But I thought liberals’ whole thing is being smart? It’s not? They actually just blindly cheer the parade of rickety optics wrapped up in New York Times fonts that is the modern Dem Party?
Well at least it’s time for the dusty hacks & careerists to spread their feathers wide post election and blame Russia and third party candidates. That should fix things.
This was a large donor to the Democrat party. I find this guy most interesting. His take on things, at best half right, at least puts the blame on Harris and the Democrat party.
I find it very telling that all the other whining I see on the web about Harris’s loss is based on introspection. It does not include asking republicans why they voted the way they did. And, one would think, they should especially be asking people who usually vote for democrats why they voted for Trump in this election.
I see, again and again, insistence the voters are sexist, racist, white nationalist, and/or fascist. Nevermind that black men, and all Latinos voted for Trump in greater numbers than in 2020. And in some counties a larger fraction of blacks voted Republican this year than they have since the 1870s! Nevermind these evil voters wouldn’t be pushing lawsuits through the courts that make it easier for individuals own guns and training them on how to defend themselves from the likes of the KKK, men who women, and a fascist government.
Their mindset is it always someone else’s fault. The problem is not they are trying to sell an inferior product. The problem is the people are too stupid and/or evil to buy it. In an individual, this sort of reasoning is a strong indicator of mental illness. It can be argued it means the same thing in a group.
While it’s not always possible to evade government mandates, registering your guns just puts them on a shopping list for sticky-fingered officials. That’s true of registering anything that you value and that powerful people might fear or covet.
Even more concerning, though, is the prospect of governments in supposedly free societies conducting intelligence operations against their people and punishing those who hold disapproved ideas. That’s a great argument for getting rid of the need for government permission to go about our lives. Politicians will never approve of those who disagree with them, but we shouldn’t need their approval.
Way back when I started getting into guns, I thought everyone was in agreement that free speech was a good thing. While considered extremely bad form, it was legal for Nazis to have a peaceful march through Jewish neighborhoods. As near as I can recall, 30 years ago there wasn’t any real consequences to not believing the 16th Amendment was properly ratified, or that the moon landings were faked.
That is not the case anymore. New York passed a law (recently thrown out by the courts) requiring people to hand over your social media accounts to the government before you can get a concealed carry license. People have lost their jobs at Facebook for donating a couple thousand dollars to President Trump’s campaign. Others have lost their jobs for saying men, in general, were better at certain things and women were better at other things.
There currently is a deliberate chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental rights. There is some push back, as in the repeal of the New York law, but it is going to take a lot more time and resources to restore the free exercise of our rights to where they should be.
If a personalized AI becomes an extension of yourself and gains privileged and confidential knowledge about your life, it should be illegal to compel that AI to give incriminating testimony about yourself if seized or interrogated by the government.
Interesting. It would be just like the government being unable to compel your spouse, doctor, or religious confident to testify against you.
Of course, the government will claim it is more like seizing your computer, papers in your desk, or your bank records.
I’m all for ruling that the AI is not only considered off limits for compelled testimony but is prone to hallucinations. Hence, even if it did testify, it cannot be trusted to be truthful.
Plus, there should always be a thumb on the scale of power toward liberty. If there is some doubt about whether the government should have some power, the default answer should always be, “NO!”
“Freedom from fear” offers freedom from everything except the government. Anyone who sounds the alarm about excessive government power will automatically be guilty of subverting freedom from fear. Presumably,the fewer inviolable rights the citizen has, the better government will treat him. But as John Locke warned more than 300 years ago, “I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away everything else.”
Why not simply offer voters “freedom from the Constitution”? “Freedom from fear” means security via mass delusions about the nature of political power. Painting the motto “freedom from fear” on shackles won’t make them easier to bear. Perhaps our ruling class should be honest and replace the Bill of Rights with a new motto: “Political buncombe will make you free.”
So the idea here is that the dominance in the Academy of skeptical and irrationalist epistemologies provides the academic Left with a new strategy. Confronted by ruthless logic, harsh evidence, they have a solution: “That’s only logic and evidence. Logic and evidence are subjective. You can’t really PROVE anything. FEELINGS are deeper than logic, and my feelings say Socialism.”
That’s my second hypothesis about the origins of Postmodernism. I call it the Kierkegaardian hypothesis, that Postmodernism is the crisis of faith of the academic Left. Its epistemology justifies taking a personal leap of faith in continuing to believe your Socialist ideals.
Communism is no longer an economic theory. It has failed utterly at that. It’s now a religion. And it’s proselytized in our education systems.
Unfortunately, I am of the opinion this change does little, if anything, to make it less destructive. Politics have been an emotional team sport for a long time. Team communism will lose a few supporters, but they will pick up others. And those they pick up will be the type of people who thrive on strong emotions. Seeing those that opposed them piled up in a ditch will only give them a thrill and the wish to see more dead non-believers.
This hotline is nothing more than a page out of the Stasi playbook – encouraging children to spy on their own families. This is a dangerous step toward weaponizing children in households for the left, and an outrageous government overreach under the guise of public safety.
The dangers of werewolves and socialists make the ready access of information and guns critical to our survival. And, conversely, the repression of this access is critical to the spread of socialism and werewolves.
The First and Second Amendments. They are not just good ideas. They are the law.
The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue.
It’s really hard to govern today. The referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn’t a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self-select where they go for their news, for their information. And then you get into a vicious cycle.
So it’s really, really, hard, much harder to build consensus today than any time in the 45, 50 years I’ve been involved in this. You know there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you’re going to have some accountability on facts, etc.
But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.
So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.
"Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence. What we need is to win…the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change."
It’s been, only two days since someone, allegedly, tried to kill Donald Trump again. And you are here at the podium in the White House Briefing Room, calling him a threat. How many more assignation attempts on Donald Trump until the president, and the vice president, and you pick a different word, to describe Trump, other than threat?
If you question their violence inspiring rhetoric, they declare your speech is dangerous. Then, if you listen to the rest of her response, she doubles down on Trump being a threat.
This is what they think of you.
Doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know about their attitude toward the First Amendment?
She pointed to some state laws that protect individual privacy as obstacles preventing law enforcement officials from adequately responding to background checks, and said her office was currently working with state legislators to push for changes that would lift such restrictions.
Of course! Since they are infringing upon one specific enumerated right, they may as well infringe on two at the same time. Shoot, why not infringe on a bunch more at the same time. Why not throw people in jail if it is rumored they are thinking of buying a gun. Presume they are guilty and give them “due process” by an opportunity in court to prove they were not going to buy a gun to use to murder babies in hospital nurseries.
Also note this item from the same article:
In 2024, the gun background check system helped block more than 4,600 gun sales to people convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, according to the report. To date, the Department of Justice has charged more than 500 defendants with violating provisions under the law, and the expanded background check provision has kept guns out of the hands of nearly 900 young people who shouldn’t have them, federal officials said.
Notice the metric they use for the usefulness of the law. It is not a reduction in the crime rate. It is the number of people prevented from purchasing a gun from a FFL.
Their object is not making the general population safer. It is preventing the general population from purchasing firearms.
These people have zero respect for individual rights of the people.
More than 1,000 zombie knives and machetes have been surrendered to one police force as new legislation banning them becomes law.
Avon and Somerset Police said the weapons had been handed in to 15 surrender sites across the region and urged people who still had them to turn them in.
The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
St. George Tucker Blackstone’s Commentaries 1:App. 300 1803
England and the US have certainly lost much of our liberty, and we are in danger of losing more. It is time to take it back.
Hey, Gwen. You and your husband picked June 4th, the day of Tiananmen Square Massacre, as your wedding day and went to Tiananmen Square for your wedding anniversary.
Don’t pretend that you don’t know what a tyrannical government can do to a disarmed population!!
You want to eradicate our Constitutional right to bear arms. You are a Communist and a threat to our Republic!!!
We are going to make the case to the American public that he [Biden] is wrong, anti-gun liberals are wrong, and that the right to self-defense is fundamental to every law-abiding American.
Theirs is a rot that goes deeper than the marrow of their bones.
There may have been a time when the Left in the US had some integrity to their belief but decades of embracing the premeditated death of innocents have corrupted their souls to where no vice is too low for them to commit in their pursuit of power.
I used to wonder how the Nazis or the NKVD/KGB killers could be so beastial in their actions, but reading how they didn’t spring from the maw of Charon fully formed but rather they gave away their souls bit by bit in exchange for a modicum of power and bread, I see that this is where we find ourselves today.
Our foes on the left would gladly kill any of us if it means they could rule over the abattoir.
A lot of people foolishly believe that the gun control movement’s motivation is a misguided but good faith desire to stop criminal violence.
While that’s true of some people who have been personally affected by gun-related crime, for the party leaders and financiers of the left, it’s not really true. If stopping crime were the big concern, they wouldn’t embrace so many policies that quickly release violent criminals back into society.
Criminal violence isn’t the real target, the fact that broad gun ownership is a check on the erosion of other liberties is. What is happening in the UK and Brazil right now is much harder to do in the US. Millions being armed is a major deterrent to it.
Everything the modern American Democrat party does makes sense when you realize the goal is to turn us into docile and harmless western europeans.
I don’t know how things will turn out. I see too many paths depending on too many variables to make any kind of prediction or to have a significant influence. I have resigned myself to giving whatever nudge I can in the direction of fair and just trials for the perpetrators. But mass psychology being what it is, and the thin veneer of rationality our species has means that is likely a low probability outcome.
