Screw The UN

 https://x.com/henmazzig/status/2021548222565458080?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://wanaen.com/47th-anniversary-of-the-victory-of-the-islamic-revolution-of-iran/

 https://en.irna.ir/news/86075281/UN-secretary-general-congratulates-Iran-on-anniversary-of-Islamic

The Islamic Republic if Iran is one of the most oppressive, and repressive regimes on the planet.  Women are treated barbarically, and they just killed tens of thousands of peaceful protesters.  So why would the US Secretary General  offer congratulations on the beginning of this vile regime?  

 https://x.com/unwatch/status/2021650828814365092?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://www.facebook.com/reel/746302548280552

 On a related note, the UN just named Iran as vice chair of the U.N. Commission for Social Development, whose priority theme will be promoting democracy, gender equality, and ensuring tolerance and non-violence.

Because no country has a better record of promoting democracy, gender equality, tolerance and non violence than Iran. 

 

How in the world can anyone take seriously an organization that celebrates Iran, while vilifying Israel?  The UN has forfeited any credibility it once had and should be eliminated. It won't because those who want the authority to bash Israel and the US will fight tooth and nail to keep their "power". Not to mention "free" parking in NYC and a chance to have all of the advantages of living in NYC, railing against the US.

Left Wing Injustice

 https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/judge-orders-ice-to-free-four-immigrants-convicted-of-murder-child-sex-abuse-dhs-says-obama-appointed-judge-immigration-enforcement-trump-administration

I'm sure one of the ASPL/AWFL crowd could explain the reasoning behind the release of these four, and I'm sure that the explanation would be nonsensical and absurd.   

In what world does it make sense to use US taxpayer resources to support scum like these in prison, when we can simply deport them?  

In what world does this decision not show immense disrespect for the victims of their crimes?   

Oppressor, Oppressed

 https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/2021843914186272991?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

This is a story from the local NBC affiliate KARE 11.  They should meet Dan's arbitrary criteria as "real journalists" and therefore be believed.  The KARE 11 clip is embedded in a Twitter post, but that Twitter post doesn't negate the reality of the actual source of the story.  

But, just to be clear we have a news story of an autistic young woman who's been evicted because  a Somali Immigrant named Jama Mohammad started an ONG in MSP as a way to steal money from the federal and state governments.   Unfortunately his large scale theft had the unfortunate side effect of leaving this young woman (and others) homeless.  This theft happened on the watch of Tim Walz and Keith Ellison and likely was covered up by the state.   The money is likely unrecoverable, and Jama might do some time, but that means that taxpayers are out millions/billions and the young women like this are being victimized.  

I know that there is some sort of arbitrary victimhood matrix that allows ASPL to rank who is most oppressed or victimized, and I have no way to figure out whether the Somali immigrant thief is more oppressed than his white US citizen with autism who got evicted due to the actions of the Somali immigrant.  

Personally, I would land on the side of seeing the Somali immigrant as oppressing and harming those who relied on his ONG.    But that's because I'm not locked into some weird matrix of oppression.    

The MSM, The Truth, And The Narrative

 https://x.com/jonesville/status/2021834203818864927?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Back in the '80s when I got my Bachelors degree in this stuff, one of the Intro to Reporting class lessons revolved around reporters accurately reporting what happened.   Clearly Sky News (again that is the "source", not X) has failed to instill that in their reporters.  

 https://x.com/journalismseen/status/2021812038842872121?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/11/tumbler-ridge-canada-shooting-school-mark-carney

"‘Canadian police have identified the suspect as an 18-year old woman with a history of mental health problems’

This is a very serious lie about a shattering event. It’s not a point-scoring exercise to say so: it’s not stigmatising to notice and explain the lie. Journalist convention is to explain the bones of the story in the first four paragraphs. This developed from the understanding that people don’t always read down: they may click, but they don’t scroll. Engagement tapers. Not only that, at this point, the facts that the killer was a man (contra earlier reports) who ‘identified’ as trans (previously dismissed as speculation) are the newest lines, a fresh top. The

@guardian

defies all natural editorial instincts to bury in the tenth paragraph the newest line and the explanation that its first sentence is untrue. It will know by its own data that a percentage of readers will just bounce off after reading the lie, and increasing numbers drop off by a third or half of the way down. Certainly before reaching the truth. Which turns out to be not so sacred after all. The madness of this slavish, unquestioning devotion to the lie is puzzling and very worrying. There’s a defiance with which the paper sacrifices itself to the service of identity affirmation. Telling these devoted outlets that they’re wrong has a cantilever effect. It just bolsters their self-righteousness. But choosing to comply with the false claims of a child killer, and assuming virtue in doing so, should never not shock us. Is there nothing that will jolt these editors out of such servility? We saw it too with the Canadian police: the complacency with which the spokesman pronoun corrected a reporter who used accurate language. Sky News and Reuter have also been perpetuating the unqualified lie overnight, hours after being proved wrong. It seems that while there are enough people with money who want them to do it, that’s all that counts. Not principle, or the instincts that led them into the profession. Enough people to pay them to prioritise a murderer over his child victims. Reason, and appeals to professionalism and conscience, are likely misplaced. A man killed children, and if you’re ready to doff your cap and obey his demands, what difference does it make when someone points out that a long time ago you promised to tell the truth. None at all."

 

(Again, The Guardian is seems to meet Dan's arbitrary criteria for "real journalism") 

 

 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-12/canadian-shooter-identified-in-school-attack/106333992

 

(This isn't the ABC network in the US, but seems to be an outlet that meets Dan's criteria for "real journalism")

 

 https://x.com/msmelchen/status/2021685835075113455?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

Reuters (again "real journalists") jumping on the BS bandwagon too. 

 

 https://x.com/captive_dreamer/status/2021710447385452623?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

Because having the Canadian police respecting the pronouns of a dead murderer who was "mentally ill"  seems like the number one priority. 

 

Utopia V. Reality

 https://x.com/blendrnews/status/2021600576732037280?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "Here's why debating leftists feels like banging your head against a wall. Most people debate from reality outward. Leftists debate from utopia inward. The model: Imagine a utopian world → Identify gaps → Declare those gaps oppression → Demand society be remade."

 

Based on my experience, this sounds like a reasonably accurate conclusion.  

One Life

 "If it saves only one life."

This phrase is beloved by the ASPL when it comes to "common sense" legislation.   The implication is that we should happily accede to restrictions or diminishments of our constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms,  as long as it might save one life.  

If this phrase is True, if it represents an objective standard based in Truth, then this phrase should/would apply equally to any situation.   If saving one life is the standard by which public policy and rights are judged, then wouldn't we apply this standard to any and every public policy debate?   

Yet we don't do we?   Some debates or policies are exempt from being judged by this standard.   I can't help but wonder why.   

Warning, Harsh Language Plus Some Truth

 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTWYjRnjZq4/?igsh=emxjZmk1M216Y2wy

Before you click on the link, be sure you have some tolerance for some harsh language.   

With that out of the way, this guy nails it.