BoT

 https://x.com/emilio2763/status/2054375797016653876?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

More fraud in MN, reported on by local network affiliate news broadcasts.   In other words, real journalists.   

 https://www.instagram.com/p/DYBVbEhDN9W/?igsh=aXhvY2l5YWl0aGN1

So it appears that the actual DATA shows that the hysteria over police shootings was made up, and that we could reduce crime by 75% plus by removing a small percentage of people from society.   I guess we don't worry about the DATA when it doesn't fit.  

 

More History

 https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2054226983496609795?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

"@JoyceWhiteVance

What a SPECTACULAR confession. Allow me to translate what you just said in plain English: Black voters -- concentrated by YOUR party into race-based districts like voters are chess pieces -- can only "win" if they show up at extraordinary rates to overcome the geography YOUR party engineered. And when the Supreme Court disrupts that arrangement, where Black Americans are essentially stacked into electoral holding pens, you call that "not protecting minority voters." Jim Crow had separate drinking fountains. YOUR party draws separate congressional districts. Different century. Same plantation. What is next -- are you going to advocate for raising the minimum wage to price Black workers out of the labor market? Because that would be a spectacularly racist thing to do... and I was just informed you tweeted "it's time for a $15 minimum wage." In 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act was passed specifically to prevent Black construction workers from undercutting white union wages. Progressive Era academics openly called minimum wage floors a social cleansing mechanism to remove Black workers from the labor market entirely. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman called it "the most anti-Negro law on our statute books" in 1966. But sure. Fight for $15. What is next after THAT -- you are going to openly support an organization literally FOUNDED on eugenics to reduce the Black population? That would be actual ethnic cleansing, so surely no self-described champion of minority voters would ever... and I am now being told you have donated to Planned Parenthood in Mike Pence's name and celebrated keeping it funded in federal court. Margaret Sanger was not subtle about which populations she wanted to stop from reproducing. Not subtle AT ALL. But here you stand, wringing your hands about Black voters not having the right congressional district. Here is the detail a brain trust of your caliber forgot to include: Tennessee's 9th Congressional District -- Memphis -- is a majority-Black district that FREELY ELECTED a white Democrat named Steve Cohen. Black voters chose him. Without a federally mandated racial map forcing the outcome. Apparently Black voters do not need YOUR party drawing their pond and handing them a fishing rod to participate in democracy. They managed just fine. Quinn's Law #2 runs perfectly here: "If you want to know what liberals are up to, pay attention to what they accuse conservatives of doing." You are howling about the Supreme Court disenfranchising minority voters. SCOTUS just ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais (April 29, 2026) that LOUISIANA'S congressional map -- a map YOUR side drew -- was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL RACIAL GERRYMANDER. That was your map. The Court did not create a racial problem. It ruled against one. The one you created. You want more time before an election? I understand the urgency. It must be uncomfortable when the Court rules that your party's racial sorting mechanisms are unconstitutional right before you need them to work. What is next -- you are going to demand race-segregated precincts for "equity"? ...actually, your party did run exactly that system for about 70 years. They were called the white primary and the Democratic Party defended them in federal courts until 1944. But what do I know -- I am only a science teacher who has actually read the documented history your party has spent 150 years trying to bury under language about "protecting minority voters.""

Hirtory And Repeating History

 https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2054267778312425797?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "The next Democratic White House does not need a court reform commission like some college seminar. We need action. We need term limits for Justices. We need to expand this morally bankrupt Court from 9 to 13."

 

Ro Khanna 

"@TaxRichNow

Congratulations. You just handed me the history lesson and called it a rebuttal. Yes, the number changed -- six times in eighty years -- mostly to add circuit seats as the country expanded westward. Practical. Proportional. Not "we lost some rulings, so let us manufacture a majority." But you want the ONE blatantly political example? 1866. Radical Republicans slashed the court to SEVEN seats specifically to stop Andrew Johnson from filling vacancies. Historians have a name for that move. It is not a flattering one. Then they handed Ulysses Grant nine seats two years later. How convenient. It has been nine justices since 1869. One hundred fifty-seven years. Not because the Constitution carves it in stone -- it does not. Because every serious person who studied that ugly little history decided that a bench resized on political demand is not a court. It is a trophy. You found a historical footnote, declared victory, and walked away without explaining HOW that footnote produces your conclusion. That reasoning error has a Latin name: non sequitur. The existence of past political manipulation is the ARGUMENT AGAINST doing it again, not the permission slip for it. The history you cited is the cautionary tale. You thought it was the green light."

Taxes/Civilization

 I was having a conversation the other day about some people who moved their primary residence to avoid taxes.   The Holmes quote "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" was thrown out to condemn people who move for tax reasons.  

Before I go further, I just want to say that choosing to move from one state to another ONLY because to taxes seems like a poor reason to move.   Much like buying a house ONLY because of the mortgage interest deduction seems like a bad reason to buy.  

Back to the topic.  

I don't disagree with the premise.  We do pay taxes to provide for things that benefit the whole of society.   Which could be summarized as civilization.  

However, I asked a question which shut down the conversation.   The question was simply "Isn't this construct a two way street?   We pay taxes and we get "civilization" for our money, correct?".   Because when I see what is happening in cities like SF and states like CA where the streets are full of human waste and wasted humans or the state effectively legalizes shoplifting driving retail away, I don't see a good ROI on the taxes people pay.    When I see school district after school district graduating students who are not proficient in core academic subjects, I see bad ROI.   When I see a "justice system" that lets repeat violent offenders out over and over again allowing them to commit more and worse crimes, I see a bad ROI.   When I see rampant fraud, I see a bad ROI.  Look at what's happening in Seattle and NYC as clueless socialist mayors are confronted with the reality that money does not grow on trees and that tax policy does drive behavior.   Or CA where the examples of wastage of tax dollars are legion.   

I was just in KC and was struck by the fact that there are suburban neighborhoods with streets that haven't been improved since the neighborhoods were built.  Barely enough room for two cars to pass, no curbs or sidewalks, not storm water control.   Yet the city leaders ignore basic infrastructure for frills.   

The quote is explicit that the transaction is two way.  We pay taxes, we get civilization in return.  So what happens when those who receive taxes fail to deliver on their end of the  transaction?   

The leftist answer is some form of "Give us more of your money through increasing taxes." as if this will magically fix the problems their policies have created.   Which only re raises the question.  At what point is failing to deliver the promised civilization is enough?  

Again, I'm not arguing the reality of the premise.  I'm pushing back against a system that focuses on taking increasing amounts of taxes, while providing decreasing levels of civilization.   

Nothing To See Here

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYGc4JhD0Lf/?igsh=MWhuYzNmenJjaHF5bg==

No, the modern DFL hasn’t changed at all. 

Gerrymandering

 On the gerrymandering front.   

 It sounds like TN DEFers are fighting to save a district represented by an old, white guy from being represented by a black woman.   All in the name of racial equity or some such nonsense. 

In VA, the DFL is so angry that the state supreme court struck down their gerrymandering effort because it didn't follow the state law (and bypassed the commission charged with redistricting),  that they have decided that their best course of action is to change state law to completely replace the state supreme court with puppets who'll bless their illegal scheme.   Because democracy is the most important thing.  

The Straits of Hormuz

 I haven't written a lot on the Iran conflict.   I agree that Iran should not have nukes and the the most recent/current regime is objectively evil.  So, I don't have much issue with the goals.  

What I find interesting is Iran claiming that it should have total control of the Straits of Hormuz.   As I look at the map there are 7 countries other than Iran that border the Persian Gulf, and 2 or 3 that actually border the Straits of Hormuz.   I can't help but wonder why Iran believes that it unilaterally controls a waterway that is bordered by other countries and which is the only sea access for multiple other countries.  How is it that this type of oppressive behavior is accepted and tolerated by the GSPL? (global, social and political left)  On what legal basis is Iran making this claim?   For people who quickly rush to impose international law on the US and Israel to fail to do so with Iran seems contradictory at best.  In general, the notion that the GSPL is indifferent to the Iranian regime's behavior and their goal of producing nukes seems to go against their alleged principles.