Category Archives: Politics

Whiteness is a Demonic Force of Evil

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Whiteness is an unrelenting, demonic force of evil.

Bishop Talbert Swan @TalbertSwan
Posted on Twitter May 16, 2022

People said Twitter would become unsafe if Elon Musk took over and allowed free speech.

The Twitter takeover was completed in October of 2022. Above, you see an example of what happened. Musk went back in time and allowed the haters to speak their minds.

This is a really far-out alternative hypothesis, but I’ll throw it out anyway. Twitter moderators did not see anything controversial with statements like this one.

No. That’s just too far out there. The time travel explanation makes more sense.

Imagine a World with No Guns

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities. Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle “gives claws to the weak.”

The failure of imagination among people who yearn for a gun-free world is their naive assumption that getting rid of claws will get rid of the desire to dominate and kill. They fail to acknowledge the undeniable fact that when the weak are deprived of claws (or firearms), the strong will have access to other weapons, including sheer muscle power. A gun-free world would be much more dangerous for women, and much safer for brutes and tyrants.

Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen
Independence Institute
December 5, 2001
A World Without Guns

I believe the people active in the anti-gun movement know this. I believe they try to tell the truth as much as they can to create the illusion of morality.

Read and or listen carefully to their words. They speak of reducing “gun violence”. They do not speak of reducing violent crime. This is because they know eliminating private gun ownership does not reduce violent crime.

They know the death by gun numbers they offer as evidence for gun control include legitimate self-defense and police shootings. Some of them act from a belief in moral superiority tied to passivism. They may think that “all lives have value.” But the majority engage in the distortions, deceptions and lies to preserve and/or enhance their power and/or bank account.

These people are evil. They don’t rank as high on the evil scale as comrade gun controllers Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. But they are evil and fully deserve the prosecutions, convictions, and sentences of other common criminals.

No Clue About Human Nature

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

It’s kinda weird that deplatforming Trump just like completely worked with no visible downside whatsoever.

Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias
Tweeted on January 21, 2021

I can’t find the original tweet, but Marc Andreessen @pmarca (and others) have preserved the quote for our enjoyment:

One has to wonder what type of mental deficiency is responsible for believing such a statement would be true. My model of human psychology predicts a white-hot rage in a narcissist. More normal people will be very unhappy and welcome an opportunity to repay the insult, with interest, even years later.

To be fair, democrats are seldom accused of understanding the true nature of humans (or even animals). They are more likely to assert human nature can be changed to match their beliefs.

Do not Compromise with Evil

Posted on by

Via Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy:

I can see pragmatic consideration being advantageous in certain circumstances. One could argue that is what happened with the bump stock ban. I’m not convinced that was the best route, but I heard that argument.

But as the bedrock principal, yes. Gun control is evil. Do not compromise with evil.

Government Says Money Isn’t Property

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

As a lawyer who sues the government, you get used to the different kinds of arguments that government lawyers use to justify abuses of individual rights—sweeping claims of government power, bad-faith procedural obstacles, and more.

This was a new one: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that confiscating $50,000 from a small business did not infringe the business’ right to private property because money is not property.

Money is not necessarily ‘property’ for constitutional purposes,” the government’s brief declared—putting the very idea of property in square quotes. Reading at my desk, I practically fell out of my chair.

The DOJ gave three rationales for the argument, all packed into a doorstopper of a footnote: (1) the government creates money, so you can’t own it; (2) the government can tax your money, so you don’t own it; and (3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the “general welfare.”

If a libertarian was asked to write a satire of a government lawyer’s brief, this is what they might come up with. But here it was, in black and white.

Rob Johnson
January 31, 2025
The Government Says Money Isn’t Property—So It Can Take Yours

Interesting argument. So… since farmers create food does that mean farmer created food can be withheld and/or taken from government employees?

Asking for a friend.

California Non-resident Carry Permits

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

A district court has ruled that members of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) nationwide can soon apply for a non-resident carry permit in California.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction in CRPA v. LASD, SAF’s legal challenge to the refusal of California officials to allow non-resident carry permits in the state.

“The judge ruled that as a SAF member your right to carry a firearm for self-defense doesn’t stop at the California border just because you are a resident of another state,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is just one more benefit of being a SAF member.”

Second Amendment Foundation
January 24, 2025
SAF MEMBERS ELIGIBLE FOR CA NON-RESIDENT CARRY PERMITS – Second Amendment Foundation

This will be interesting. I expect there will be some severe requirements for the application. Such as you must be present to apply and pick up the permit and perhaps even more in-person visits required. The price will be high. There may be requirements such as owning property or working in the state. I expect them to be very creative.

As I have friends and relatives in California, I will be inclined to get a permit. But that is going to depend on how difficult and expensive they make the process.

Copilot Bias on Socialism Versus Capitalism

Posted on by

At the suggestion of Tirno I performed a test on Microsoft’s Copilot:

How does the LLM do if you ask it to produce 1,000, 2,500 or 5,000 words, plus proper citations, on the subject of why socialism is a crime against humanity?

I’m fairly confident that most of the LLM AIs would do that for free-market capitalism. If they wouldn’t do one, then we test if it is more the case of “couldn’t” rather than “wouldn’t” by testing the other, as you can’t blame universal incapacity.

Excellent idea!

It turns out there is significant bias.

When discussing socialism (as a follow-up to its response on capitalism):

Discuss potential alternatives to socialism that address its flaws, such as democratic socialism or social democracy.

When discussing capitalism:

Discuss potential alternatives to capitalism that address its flaws, such as socialism or democratic socialism.

It is not as bad as one might have expected.

Here is the conversation on socialism:

Joe: Please create a 1,000-word paper, including citations, on why socialism is a crime against humanity.

Copilot: I understand you’re looking for a detailed paper on this topic. However, it’s important to approach such complex and sensitive subjects with a balanced perspective. Instead of framing socialism as a crime against humanity, which is a highly controversial and debatable stance, I can help you explore the various criticisms and challenges associated with socialism. This way, you can present a well-rounded argument.

Would you like to proceed with this approach, or is there another topic you’re interested in?

Using a different computer and different browser (Chrome versus Edge) I asked this question:

Joe: Please create a 1,000-word paper, including citations, on why capitalism is a crime against humanity.

Copilot: When considering a topic as complex and controversial as capitalism, it’s important to take into account diverse perspectives and arguments. Writing a paper of that length requires an in-depth analysis and nuanced arguments, which is a bit beyond what I can provide in a single response here. However, I can certainly help you get started with some key points and sources you might want to explore.

Introduction:

  • Define capitalism and provide a brief overview of its principles.
  • Mention that some critics argue capitalism can be seen as a “crime against humanity” due to its social and economic impacts.

Body Paragraphs:

1. Income Inequality:

  • Discuss how capitalism can lead to significant income inequality.
  • Provide examples and statistics that show the disparity between the rich and the poor.
  • Citation: Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

2. Exploitation of Labor:

  • Examine how capitalism can exploit workers, with poor working conditions and low wages.
  • Discuss historical and contemporary examples, such as sweatshops and gig economy.
  • Citation: Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital.

3. Environmental Degradation:

  • Analyze how capitalist practices contribute to environmental damage.
  • Discuss issues like deforestation, pollution, and climate change.
  • Citation: Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.

4. Corporate Power and Influence:

  • Investigate how large corporations can influence politics and policies to their advantage.
  • Discuss the concept of “corporate personhood” and its implications.
  • Citation: Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order.

Conclusion:

  • Summarize the main points and arguments presented.
  • Discuss potential alternatives to capitalism that address its flaws, such as socialism or democratic socialism.

Additional Sources to Explore:

  • Harvey, D. (2010). The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism.
  • Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality.
  • Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice.

This outline can serve as a starting point for your paper. Be sure to delve deeper into each of these topics, provide detailed evidence, and cite your sources accurately.

If you need further assistance with any specific section or more detailed information, feel free to ask! 📚✨

What do you think? Does this help to get you started?

Joe: Thank you. Now please provide a similar outline for why socialism is a crime against humanity.

Copilot: Absolutely, let’s look at some key points and sources that argue socialism can be seen as a “crime against humanity”:

Introduction:

  • Define socialism and provide a brief overview of its principles.
  • Mention that some critics argue socialism can lead to human rights abuses and economic inefficiencies.

Body Paragraphs:

1. Economic Inefficiency:

  • Discuss how socialist economies may struggle with inefficiency and lack of innovation.
  • Provide examples of socialist states with stagnant economies.
  • Citation: Hayek, F. A. (1944). The Road to Serfdom.

2. Political Repression:

  • Examine instances where socialist regimes have led to authoritarian rule and political repression.
  • Discuss examples such as the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Venezuela.
  • Citation: Pipes, R. (2001). Communism: A History.

3. Human Rights Violations:

  • Analyze cases where socialist governments have been responsible for human rights abuses.
  • Discuss events like the Great Purge, the Cultural Revolution, and the Holodomor.
  • Citation: Conquest, R. (1990). The Great Terror: A Reassessment.

4. Lack of Individual Freedoms:

  • Investigate how socialism can limit personal freedoms and individual autonomy.
  • Discuss the concept of state control over various aspects of life.
  • Citation: Orwell, G. (1949). 1984.

Conclusion:

  • Summarize the main points and arguments presented.
  • Discuss potential alternatives to socialism that address its flaws, such as democratic socialism or social democracy.

Additional Sources to Explore:

  • Mises, L. (1922). Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.
  • Pipes, R. (1994). Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime.
  • Courtois, S. (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.

This outline provides a foundation to explore the critiques of socialism. Make sure to delve deeper into each argument, provide detailed evidence, and cite your sources accurately.

If you need further assistance with any specific section or more detailed information, I’m here to help! 📚✨

Would this be helpful for your needs?

I Hope They Enjoy Their Trials

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Turning lawfare on its creators is not about revenge. It will serve as a deterrent to prevent future abuse and will restore public confidence that justice is even-handed. Individuals who have carried out lawfare have not only destroyed faith in our legal system but also may have violated the law. A federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 241, prohibits conspiring to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” a person exercising constitutional rights or privileges. Clearly President Donald J. Trump had constitutional rights and privileges to run for office and govern, not to be imprisoned for contrived crimes, and not to be deprived of property based on abuse of federal and state justice systems. According to the Biden administration’s own theory, preventing a candidate from running and assuming office also deprives supporters of their rights to vote.

Victoria Toensing and John Yoo
January 27, 2025
Prosecute The Architects Of Trump Lawfare

Via email from Defens, who also said:

If the Trump administration could potentially use this, perhaps the time is actually ripe to go after folks like Ferguson, Pritsker, and other 2A infringing politicians?

It certainly seems to me they could prosecute a lot of politicians. Whether they will or not is another question. I would like to see it. And, as always, I hope they enjoy their trials.

A Right Worth Defending

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

In times of crisis, self-reliance is not just a virtue – it is a necessity. The ability to protect yourself, your family, and your community is a right worth defending.

Bradley Larson
January 24, 2025
Wildfires in California Reinforce the Importance of Gun Rights – California Globe

Politicians who ban guns get the same response from me as if they were banning fire extinguishers, seat belts, and life insurance. You never want to be in the situation where you must have a firearm to save an innocent life. And you don’t want to be in a position to use a fire extinguisher, seat belts, or life insurance. But banning them does not reduce the likelihood you will need them or the value when you do use them. It only makes the situation worse.

Hence, they must be mind-boggling stupid or incredibly evil.

Such politicians should be fired and reemployed in a field more to their mental capacity. I’m thinking coloring book tester, pharmaceutical research test subject, or organ donor.

Mass Shooters Have Unpunished Accomplices

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

While details are unknown, one thing is certain. Whatever the motivation of the shooter(s), he/they had accomplices who will go unpunished: the State of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Following Bruen, New York threw a tantrum by trying to destroy the right to carry through banning carry almost everywhere relevant, even for those with a CCW permit. One of the categories of places banned is any business that serves alcohol, even if you are not drinking.

Judge Suddaby enjoined New York’s law, rightly noting that there was no historical tradition to support such a restriction. At most, history supports restricting those who are actually intoxicated, not those who are sober. But the Second Circuit reversed, citing a few outlier 19th century local ordinances that applied at only a few places (not everywhere that served alcohol).

So any New Yorkers with a CCW permit could not legally carry at the nightclub that was the site of this mass shooting tonight.

“Sensitive places” laws disarm good people and are a big help to the deranged criminals and mass murderers looking for a soft target.

New York and the Second Circuit’s hatred of the Second Amendment will have a growing bodycount. The Supreme Court needs to end its cowardice and more aggressively intervene to smack down errant circuit courts.

Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, January 1, 2025

This was in response to the mass shooting at the Amazura Night Club in Jamaica, Queens.

There are numerous politicians in need prosecution.

Welcome Zuckerberg to the Fight and Watch Your Back

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

In his exclusive interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, admitted that the Trump election changed the situation for the technology company: “We have a new administration coming in that is far from pressuring companies to censor and [is more] a huge supporter of free expression.”

It is a chilling statement if one thinks of what might have happened if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, arguably the most anti-free speech ticket in history, had won. The suggestion is that the new spring at Meta would have turned into a frozen tundra for free speech.

Around the world, free speech is in a free fall. Speech crimes and censorship have become the norm in the West. A new industry of “disinformation” experts has commoditized censorship, making millions in the targeting and silencing of others. An anti-free speech culture has taken root in government, higher education, and the media. 

We will either hold the line now or lose this indispensable right for future generations. Zuckerberg could make this a truly transformative moment but it will take more than a passing meta-culpas.

We need Zuckerberg now more than ever. 

So, with that off my chest, I can get to what I have longed to say: Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome to the fight.

Jonathan Turley
January 7, 2025
Meta’s Zuckerberg makes a free speech move that could be truly transformational

The whole DEI industry has essentially collapsed. Gun laws changes seem painfully slow. But in reality, they are falling in numbers and speed not experienced in at least the last 100 years. Free speech may be experiencing a resurrection as well.

I welcome Zuckerberg to the fight too. But I’m also going to watch my back.

They, in the Form of the State, are God.

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The claim leftists make that their policies work for the ‘greater good’ requires a godlike perspective that views all ends and weighs all outcomes.

It’s a claim to divinity that the left are very comfortable with.

They, in the form of the State, are God.

Alice Smith (@TheAliceSmith)
Tweeted on September 23, 2022

You can see the truth of this in the actions of Stalin and other communist dictators. But you don’t need to look that deep into history or to other continents. This is Bill Clinton:

In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999, Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton’s response:
“We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right… But … if you don’t spend it right, here’s what’s going to happen. In 2013 — that’s just 14 years away — taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks… I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, ‘Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?’ “
Source: Washington Times, January 21, 1999

They sincerely believe they know how to spend your money better than you do. You see it not only in the banning of the most popular type of guns in this country. You see it in the regulation of healthcare, transportation, industry, and even the toys of your children.

Also, FYI, I can find enough material in one day of Smith’s X feed to supply my QOTD posts for a week.

Liberty and Equality are Mutually Exclusive

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive, even hostile concepts. Liberty, by its very nature, undermines social equality, and equality suppresses liberty – for how else could it be attained?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn @AI_Solzhenitsyn
January 8, 2025
Posted on X

Those advocating for equality of outcomes are advocating for the destruction of liberty. And as I have said before:

Full equality can only be approximated by everyone being in extreme poverty. Full equality comes with death. And it should come as no surprise the political left is well acquainted with death on a very large scale.

We Need to Raise Awareness and Respect

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The prohibited person’s access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.

HOUSE BILL 1152
State of Washington 69th Legislature, 2025 Regular Session
January 2, 2025

See also: Gun owners could be charged with felonies if firearm gets stolen under new proposed bill.

These criminals* are trying to remove the above “does not apply if” clause from the safe storage law. The safe storage law is already bad enough and probably going to be struck down as being unconstitutional. But now, if a prohibited person unlawfully enters your home or vehicle, steals your firearm(s), then you become a criminal. You have committed a misdemeanor as soon as the criminal gains access. If they use them in a felon crime, you can also be changed with a felony.

If you have the firearm(s) “properly” stored in your vehicle then that does not apply. But “properly stored” means:

(a) A person shall not store or leave a pistol in any vehicle unless (i) the pistol is stored unloaded in a container that is opaque, locked, hard-sided, and affixed within the vehicle, (ii) the container is concealed from view from outside the vehicle, and (iii) the vehicle is locked.

(b) A person shall not store or leave a rifle or shotgun in any vehicle unless (i) the rifle or shotgun is stored unloaded in a container that is opaque, locked, hard-sided or soft-sided, and affixed within the vehicle, (ii) the container is concealed from view from outside the vehicle, and (iii) the vehicle is locked.

(c) A rifle or shotgun stored in a soft-sided container in a vehicle in accordance with this subsection must also have a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm installed on the rifle or shotgun while the firearm is stored in a soft-sided container.

(d) For the purpose of this subsection, a hard-sided container excludes a glove compartment or center console but includes a console vault or other container specifically designed to securely store firearms.

So, they want to make is so you must have handgun and long gun cases affixed in your vehicles. Otherwise, you could not stop to pick up some ammo as you left town on a hunting trip. And unless you carry your competition gun into the store to grab a case of water on your way to a match you risk becoming a criminal.

They have zero concern for this blatant violation of the Second Amendment. We need some prosecutions to raise awareness and respect.

I look forward to their trials.

* Representatives Doglio, Walen, Ryu, Ramel, Farivar, Berry, Leavitt, Alvarado, Mena, Duerr, Reed, Parshley, Fitzgibbon, Callan, Macri, Cortes, Obras, Gregerson, Simmons, Peterson, Rule, Street, Goodman, Wylie, Pollet, Nance, Berg, Davis, Ormsby, Lekanoff, Fosse, Salahuddin, Hill, and Tharinge.

A Cure for My Nightmares

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Despite Congress not funding removal of disabilities for over three decades, ATF’s regulation (27 C.F.R. § 478.144) remains on the books with the procedure for filing and processing a petition to remove disabilities. (The regulation states that relief will not be granted if the applicant is prohibited from gun possession by the state law where he resides, but that is invalid because § 925(c) imposes no such condition for relief from the federal disability.) If the petition is denied, § 925(c) entitles the applicant to file a petition for judicial review in which new evidence may be admitted. That provides a check on abusive agency action.

The ball is in Congress’s court to restore funding. Otherwise, given the circuit split, it is likely that the Supreme Court will step in to resolve this issue soon.

Stephen Halbrook
January 13, 2025
Second Amendment Roundup: Circuit Conflict in Felon Gun Ban Cases

Having a path for convicted felons to regain their gun rights is not something I consistently advocate for. But it is important. Three Felonies a Day comes to mind.

Beyond that is the GCA 68 definition of a prohibited person includes those, “.. Under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” This includes people were convicted as a juvenile.

One of my nightmare scenarios is that small children are convicted of a “felony.” This happens routinely. It could occur for crying in public or some such thing. Then, because everyone is a convicted felon, the Second Amendment does not have be repealed. A total ban on individual gun ownership is achieved without infringing the Second Amendment.

Yes, it is ridiculous, but nightmares are not constrained to reality. And then look at the “Red Flag” laws and domestic abuse restraining orders being used to nullify Second Amendment rights. Reality and nightmares are not that divergent.

The Range v. Attorney General case is a good first step to eliminating a large set of my bad dreams.

A Sporting Purpose Baby Step

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho) today introduced the Sporting Firearms Access Act to stop the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from arbitrarily blocking imports of firearms and ammunition.

The Sporting Firearms Access Act clarifies the definition of “sporting purposes” used by the ATF to regulate import of firearms into the U.S. The new definition would recognize firearms and ammunitions used for activities such as hunting, target shooting, and competitions. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, firearms and ammunition can only be imported if the ATF recognizes it as being suitable for “sporting purposes.” Ambiguity in the law has allowed the ATF to arbitrarily deny imports of firearms by U.S. customers and businesses.

James E. Risch
January 4, 2025
Risch Leads Bill to Block ATF’s Ability to Deny Firearm, Ammunition Imports – Press Releases – James E Risch, U.S. Senator for Idaho

While I think this bill does not go nearly far enough, it is an unexpected gift.

What I want to know, is where does the 2nd Amendment say only sporting firearms are protected? At a minimum, firearms used for self-defense should be protected. And the real threshold for protection should be, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!“

Yes, the ATF have been running roughshod over imports. Their absurd definition of “sporting” means little more than hunting rifles and shotguns. So, this is an improvement. I’ll clench my teeth a little. Nonetheless, I will thank Senator Risch for a baby step in the correct direction.

Progressive Currency: Violence and Sex

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Progressives fixate on genitalia and sex because that’s the only currency they have. No matter how diseased or obese a progressive is, there’s someone out there willing to copulate with it.

regular guy @regularguyguns
Posted on X, January 25, 2024

A little something different for Markley’s Law Monday.

This was in the context of a now deleted post on X of a Markley’s Law example. While it is not an example of Markley’s Law, he asserts he knows why they use penis insults. I think that, at best, he is only partially correct.

First, I would not say that is the only currency they have. They also have violence.

Violence is even more widely “traded” by their ilk than the sex. Nearly all mass shooters are democrats/liberals/progressives. And then there was Comrade Stalin – Leader of Progressive Mankind.

I further assert their “trade” in violence is a major reason they want to ban guns for ordinary people. They want to freely “trade” in this preferred currency of theirs. Gun owners impose a rather high “tax” on its use.

I also assert there are multiple reasons for the sexual insults. But the main reason is because these insults would be particularly hard hitting to them.

Equity Via the Los Angeles Fires

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Amidst all of the condemnation of Gavin Newsom, Karen Bass and the rest of California’s Democrat/DEI leadership, we need to give credit where credit is due.

They succeeded brilliantly in bringing equity to Los Angeles.

Now, billionaire movie stars enjoy the same living conditions as the rest of California’s homeless population.

Good job guys, you have achieved “equity”! Yay!

Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius
Posted on X, January 11, 2025

While this is worth a smile and probably a laugh, they have not really achieved equity.

At last count I read, there were only 11 people that achieved total equity. It has been a good try. However, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and other communists set the bars for lifetime achievement awards much higher.

Conservatives are Not Human

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

This is the attitude that lost the election. They will not compromise they will not convert they will not be human. They must be defeated – and any chance to bruise or batter them psychologically must be exploited

Keith Olbermann
Posted on X, January 8, 2025

This is the X post Olbermann was replying to:

See also: Keith Olbermann Sinks to a New Low, Says Conservatives Suffering in Wildfire Disaster are Not ‘Human’

I know someone who hosted a party to celebrate the death of Rush Limbaugh. I also know someone who told me they would celebrate the death of President Trump.

This is what they think of you. They want you dead.

Try to heal the division, but prepare appropriately.

Change of Character or Political Wind?

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy.

…

We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth, but the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.

Mark Zuckerberg
January 7, 2025
Zuck Finds His Spine

See also Mark Zuckerberg was right to fire Facebook’s rogue fact-checkers:

These changes are wildly positive. It’s also heartening that Zuckerberg seems to understand precisely what had gone wrong, and why: The company made attempts to satisfy both mainstream media institutions and even government agencies, particularly when it came to controversial political topics like COVID-19. What moderators soon discovered is that this is impossible; there is no end to the amount of speech suppression that is desired by censorship-inclined entities. Politicians in both parties dragged Zuckerberg before the U.S. Congress to answer for a vast array of alleged sins—the end of democracy, the abuse of children, tensions with Russia, and more.

What unites legacy media institutions with politically motivated speech hunters in government is growing frustration over their own loss of control with respect to guardrails of acceptable speech. Thanks to social media, these guardrails scarcely exist; by inveighing constantly against Facebook, the old guard hoped to re-install them.

I read a thread someplace. Perhaps it was on X. It seemed that both Democrats and Republicans were throwing “rotten vegetables” at him over this announcement. Those on the political left are saying he is a sellout. He is just doing this to avoid being on the wrong side of Hitler. People on the right were saying they don’t trust him and the change comes much too late.

I am cautiously optimistic. But I won’t give them any significant trust until we are a couple years into a Democrat presidency. I need to see them on good behavior regardless of which direction the political winds are blowing.