A decent start

I found this very pleasing:

A judge has ruled that Meta intentionally violated Washington campaign-finance law 822 times, according to Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

A judge ruled on Sept. 2 that Facebook owner Meta repeatedly and intentionally violated Washington campaign-finance law, and must pay penalties, the Washington state Attorney General’s Office said.

According to Ferguson, intentional violations can result in tripled penalties.

Washington’s transparency law, passed by voters about 50 years ago, requires ad sellers such as Meta to disclose the names and addresses of those who buy political ads, the target of such ads and the total number of views of each ad. Ad sellers must provide the information to anyone who asks for it.

The social media giant, which also owns Instagram and other social media platforms, has repeatedly objected to the requirements, and argued in a summary judgment motion that Washington’s law “unduly burdens political speech” and is “virtually impossible to comply with.”

The law allows financial penalties of $10,000 per violation, which can be tripled when violations are deemed intentional. The Attorney General’s Office asserts Facebook has committed hundreds of violations since 2018.

Meta (Facebook) could face a fine of nearly $25M. After the crap they pulled in the 2020 election I consider this a decent start.

Quote of the day—Rachel Alexander

Researchers found that by merely analyzing that type of brain activity, they could predict whether someone is Republican or Democrat 82.9% of the time.

John Hibbing, a University of Nebraska political scientist, researched twins and found that identical twins share more political beliefs than fraternal twins. Since identical twins share more genes, he concluded, “Forty, perhaps 50 percent of our political beliefs seem to have a basis in genetics.”

Rachel Alexander
September 26, 2022
Our Brains Are Wired Differently Than Democrats, So Don’t Get Too Mad at Them
[Interesting… They (for certain values of “they”) are broken and can’t be fixed. At least you could say that from a first glance at the data. A deeper dive would reveal more subtle conclusions.

She didn’t mention it in the article but a book I just started reading points out that different personal viewpoints have advantages and disadvantages depending upon the current situation.

For example, experimenting and risk taking to improve your life is probably a good thing when your situation is changing in a potentially life changing manner. If life is good then not changing things is probably the proper path.

I say that because there will be some people who will claim that some sets of people, including their children, are irredeemable and a threat to humanity. I don’t agree with that except for some extremely small sets (violent psychopaths for example).

The large sets wouldn’t be large if they were unfit from a evolutionary standpoint. We may not see their benefit to society. If fact we may be able to make a good case they are a detriment in our current situations. But there must have been some benefit at some time in the past. This means there may be a time in the future when they will be a benefit again and you are the detriment in that new situation.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Holly Sullivan

We all deserve to live in safe communities, but denying ownership of the most commonly owned firearms in the country is not the way to achieve it.

Holly Sullivan
President of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League
September 30, 2022
Gun owners, rights groups challenge Connecticut firearms ban
[This is just one of several challenges to the bans of “assault weapons”.

I wish them well.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Texas GOP @TexasGOP

Come and take it.

Texas GOP @TexasGOP
Tweeted on September 24, 2022
[This was in response to this:

Considering Texas history this is particularly appropriate.

We’ll probably never get to find out if Texas will stand by those words because I don’t think President Biden has the political power to ban any guns that common.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Robb @johnrobb

If Putin uses a nuke, the network swarm with corporate and government support, will conduct a global witch hunt for Putin apologists.

John Robb @johnrobb
Tweeted on October 2, 2022
[Good point I hadn’t thought of that. That’s why he gets the big bucks.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Who is delusional?

I find this attitude “interesting”:

Gun reformers feel history is on their side despite bleak outlook in Congress

In the face of such tragedy, anti–gun violence activists have doubled down on their commitment to push for more reform, regardless of who controls Congress after November.

Murphy echoed that commitment, even as he conceded that Congress was unlikely to pass another gun control bill this year. Praising the anti–gun violence community as “one of the great social change movements in the history of this nation,” Murphy said he and his allies were just getting started.

“All of those great social change movements that you read about in the history books, they failed a whole bunch of times before they ever changed the world,” Murphy said. “My hope is based upon the history books, which tell you – when your cause is right and you choose not to give up, in this country, in a democracy – you eventually prevail.”

There is zero mention of the Second Amendment and recent SCOTUS decisions in the article. Is this something they really believe and are delusional? Or are they just trying to “rally the troops” in a time of great depression? Either reason would explain the omission of the 2nd Amendment.

Of course I could be delusional. This was totally unexpected: Bump stock ban remains as Supreme Court turned away challenge from gun rights advocates. I hope the ATF creation of new law without congressional action will be addressed in an unrelated case, but directly applicable to, the bump stock issue. The end result could be the same overruling of the bump stock ban but much cleaner, broad ranging, and perhaps decreased perception of SCOTUS being owned by gun owners or some such thing.

Putin’s next move?

Via “reliable sources” which I am not at liberty to share* the resistance to the war by the Russian people is getting energetic. At least 13 military recruitment offices have been burned down. Police shooting in the air has been failing to to break up protests, and people are burning Putin’s portrait. And an estimated 260,000 men of military age have left the country.

So, what is Putin to do?

This should not come as a surprise:

Nuclear weapons convoy sparks fears Putin could be preparing test to send ‘signal to the West’:

A train operated by the secretive nuclear division and linked to the 12th main directorate of the Russian ministry of defence was spotted in central Russia over the weekend heading towards the front line in Ukraine.

The pro-Russian Telegram channel Rybar shared the footage showing the large freight convoy hauling upgraded armoured personnel carriers and other equipment.

Konrad Muzyka, a defence analyst specialising in Ukraine, said the 12th directorate operated a dozen central storage facilities for nuclear weapons.

Is he bluffing?

If he isn’t and pops an mushroom cloud, then what does NATO do? If they don’t have a vigorous response then Putin can annex any piece of ground without a NATO stamp on it, and maybe even non-nuclear possessing NATO countries. And with an energetic response from NATO, then what?

My understanding is that all the war games against Russia with scenarios that result in just one nuke being used result in everything being released.

Prepare appropriately. I want an underground bunker in Antarctica.


* There are open sources for all the information in this paragraph, but my source is a meld/analysis of the open sources.

Quote of the day—Jonathan Turley

In an age of rage, Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jennifer Rubin has long been a standout in her attacks on Republicans and conservatives: “We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again.” However, her recent column shows that she has made a clean break not only from Republicans but from reason. The writer (long cited by the Post as their “Republican columnist” for balance) has called for the media to abandon balance and impartiality. Rubin is demanding that the media just become overt advocates in refusing to report both sides in the myriad of political issues in this election.

In her column, Rubin rejects the “need for false balance” because the coverage can suggest that Republicans are “rational.”

Jonathan Turley
September 24, 2022
Washington Post Columnist Calls for the End of Impartiality and Balance in Journalism
[This is what they think of you.

Prepare and respond appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jim Kenney

This is a gun country, it’s crazy, we’re the most armed country in world history and we’re one of the least safest. Until Americans decide that they want to give up the guns, and give up the opportunity to get guns, we’re gonna have this problem. I’ll be happy when I’m not… mayor.

Jim Kenney
Philadelphia Mayor
July 5, 2022
Philly Mayor Jim Kenney Says He’s So Sick of Guns He’ll Be ‘Happy’ to Not Be Mayor
[With that attitude toward a specific enumerated right, a lot of other people will be glad when he is not mayor too.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tracey Wilson (@TWilsonOttawa)

It’s been 878 days since the Libs “banned” my AR-15. It’s right where it’s always been, locked away in my safe, in my gun room. Violent criminals continue to shoot up our cities & illicit guns still flow across our borders to gangs.
It’s all theatre
#FakeBan #FakePublicSafety

Tracey Wilson (@TWilsonOttawa)
Tweeted on September 26, 2022
[I’m hoping to get a chance to get some face time with a gun owning friend in British Columbia in the next couple of months. I want to know what the “word on the street” is like.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tyler Shandro

Alberta is not legally obligated and will not offer any provincial resources to the Federal Government as it seeks to confiscate lawfully acquired firearms.

Tyler Shandro
Alberta’s Minister of Justice
September 26, 2022
BREAKING: Kenney Commands Alberta RCMP to Ignore Trudeau’s Gun Laws
[Via email from Rolf and a blog post by Clayton.

It’s a much stronger statement than just the above quote. It is made very clear they are not going to take this gun banning crap from the Feds.

As Rolf said in the email:

Nullification? They may be getting close to a national split faster than we are.

And Clayton:

Anytime you want to change teams, Alberta, we would love to have another gun rights state.

Alberta connects with Montana. I could see that working. If their politics were suitable I’d like to see British Columbia joining. That would connect Alaska to the lower 48 (or 49 with Alberta).—Joe]

How to know if you need a gun

Via CF Active @ActiveCf:

image

Quote of the day—Brian Riedl

The progressives demanding new debt-financed programs to take advantage of low interest rates did not acknowledge that Washington is already on course to borrow $114 trillion over 30 years just to finance current programs.

Brian Riedl
September 20, 2022
Expected Interest Rate Hike Will Add $2 Trillion to the Deficit
[Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow

The research also found that gun owners who are receptive to regulations feel alienated by the current national conversation. They have a fundamentally different view than most gun-safety activists and pro-reform politicians who don’t own guns. Whereas someone like me sees guns as dangerous, gun owners typically see them as a way to keep safe. Whereas I associate guns exclusively with harm, gun owners see them as a tool that can be used for good or bad purposes. This helps explain a widespread conviction among gun owners: that policy should focus on “keeping guns out of the wrong hands,” not on bans of certain types of weapons or attempts to reduce the number of guns in the country. Another survey found that most gun owners believe that gun-reform advocates ultimately want to take their guns away. This belief makes them mistrustful and reluctant to speak out for any reforms at all — the “slippery slope” argument.

Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow
September 21, 2022
Will Gun Owners Fight for Stronger Gun Laws? — A new group, which includes two former NRA lobbyists, is betting on it
[Yet another gun control group. How many have failed now? Yet they keep trying to put lipstick on the pig.

While she has a better understanding of her opposition than most anti-gun people she has certain important “facts” wrong. For example she apparently believes:

Siegel has found that the majority of gun owners support four laws shown to be effective: universal background checks, prohibitions for those convicted of violent misdemeanors, permits for concealed carry, and permits for gun purchases and possession. He estimates that if all four were implemented, firearm homicides would decline by 35 percent.

Technically this may be true. But it is extremely deceptive in it’s wording.

“Firearm homicide” includes defensive use of firearms. Even if it did only include murder by firearm it does not mean it would decrease the murder rate because criminals substitute other weapons when firearms become difficult to obtain.

There are other weasel words and phrases in this claim as well as outright lies which I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

And the last point I would like to make is that she totally ignores the Bruen decision.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jolie McCullough

The U.S. attorney’s office said the law to prohibit those under felony indictment from obtaining guns does not interfere with the Second Amendment “because it does not disarm felony indictees who already had guns and does not prohibit possession or public carry.”

Jolie McCullough
September 19, 2022
Texas judge rules that people under felony indictment have the right to buy guns under the Second Amendment
[As I understand it, this Federal Prosecutor is making the argument that the law prohibiting the purchase of a firearm by someone with a felony indictment is constitutional because the person can continue to possess and carry any existing firearms they own. But can’t the defense attorney also claim because their client is allowed to keep and use any firearm they already own the law against purchase is nonsensical, serves no purpose, and the client has harmed no one despite breaking a law? Or is this one of those cases where you just have to say, “It’s just a law. It doesn’t have to make sense?”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Frank Miniter

Gun-control groups want this freedom issue framed as a “safety issue,” with gun control as the solution; as in, if the elites just had the power to ban, confiscate or deeply restrict the use of firearms, they could save the people. That’s nonsense, of course, as history shows again and again that disarmed peoples are not and do not remain free; “safe” is not an adjective the people of Venezuela, to give one example, would now use to describe their situation.

Frank Miniter
September 21, 2022
This Is Not A Culture War
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Eric Schmitt

The creation of a Merchant Category Code for sales at U.S. gun stores will not only not accomplish its intended goal, but is rife for misuse and abuse. Missourians value their Second Amendment rights and oppose any attempts to create a de-facto gun registry. I’m proud to stand up for those rights and will oppose this decision by the major credit card companies at every turn.

Eric Schmitt
Missouri Attorney General
September 21, 2022
Missouri Attorney General slams credit card companies for violation of Second Amendment rights
[Twenty four attorneys general signed a letter sent to American Express, Master Card and VISA CEOs.  I can’t imagine this accomplishing anything more than some positive publicity for the signers of the letter. But it doesn’t hurt our cause any either.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anonymous FBI Agent

The demand for White supremacy vastly outstrips the supply of White supremacy. We have more people assigned to investigate White supremacists than we can actually find.

Anonymous FBI Agent
September 16, 2022
Biden Reportedly Pressuring FBI to ‘Cook Up’ White Supremacy Cases
[When a government can not find enough criminals to meet their needs (in this case it is for the suppression of their political opposition) they will create them.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—VISA

We do not believe private companies should serve as moral arbiters. Asking private companies to decide what legal products or services can or cannot be bought and from what store sets a dangerous precedent. Further, it would be an invasion of consumers’ privacy for banks and payment networks to know each of our most personal purchasing habits. Visa is firmly against this.

VISA
September 13, 2022
Visa Warns Merchant Codes Won’t Show Customer Gun Purchases
[It would seem to me that VISA could decisively limit future activities by these anti-gun and other moral busybodies. They could cancel all credit cards owned by the politicians and activists who contributed to this B.S.

It won’t happen, but it’s a pleasant thought.

Quote of the day—In Chains @InChainsInJail

Imagine thinking “encouraging minorities to build their own firearms in order to defend themselves” is a “fascist” position to take.

These people are insane.

In Chains @InChainsInJail
Tweeted on September 13, 2022
[This was in response to this tweet by coderedamerica.com@coderedamerica

Replying to @RICECUTTA0 @OleGelo5 and @POTUS

@FBI @FBIWFO here is a great thread to follow especially with people like @SamuelWhittemo3 involved. Nothing spells fascist like a maga follower pretending to be a christian and promoting ghost guns.

Words mean things and there are dictionaries which can be referenced determine those meanings when you are unsure. But some people see words meaning whatever suits their purpose as the time. Others see them as just sounds they make which give them some sort of satisfaction.

My first awareness of this was in conversations I attempted to follow with a particular family. Read my comments at that link!

This family trait was a source of considerable bafflement and some amusement to me. But things didn’t really “click” for me until, as I reported in the linked post, I was told my inability to resolve a contradiction in what someone had said was unimportant:

Oh Joe, it doesn’t matter. We are just talking.

They were just making sounds at each other. It was sort of like humming to a baby to help it go to sleep.

Casual conversation is one thing. Legal definitions is another. My first recollection of having frustrations with this was in “assault weapon” ban of ‘94. What does “shall not be infringed” mean to these people? The issue was brought into clarity when I realized it was, at least sometimes, deliberate deception using the definition of words.

Other examples:

See also, Speech Is Not Violence by John Stossel.

And redefining, or perhaps more accurate in many cases “undefining”, words applies to people who job depends upon the precise meaning of words.

As much clarity as I discovered on my own since my first awareness 30 or 40 years ago, this is not a new thing. Greater minds than mine made the practice far more clear pointed out the dangers. Lewis Carroll is one such example in his book Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Circling back to the QOTD by In Chains above is something my daughter Jaime asked of me a few days ago:

Please look up the definition of “fascism” in your old timey dictionary*.

Here is the result:

Fascism The principles or methods of the Fascisti—Fascist, I. A member of the Fascisti. II. Of or pertaining to the Fascisti.

Fascisti … The members of a patriotic society in Italy, animated by a strong national spirit, and organized in connection with a repressive movement directed against the socialists and communists and the disturbances excited by them during 1919 and the years following, which regarded the government as criminally negligent in failing to deal with these disturbances, and took measure on its own account, often violent ones, to combat them, and which developed into a powerful party obtaining political control of the country in Oct., 1922, under its founder and leader, Benito Mussolini, as prime minister; hence, the members of a similar society or party elsewhere.

This definition is not the same as what is commonly used today but perhaps it has a hint of something more accurate than many people think. The people being called fascists typically are opposed to socialism and communism. But the violence component does not appear to have manifested itself.

So, is In Chains correct when he says, “These people are insane.”? Perhaps. I’m nearly certain some people redefining or undefining words have mental issues. Others, perhaps most, wish to be the master.


* “Old timey dictionary” means the unabridged The New Century Dictionary Copyright 1946, 1944, 1942, 1938, 1936,1934, 1933, 1931, 1929, 1927.