Speculation

 We've had two significant air crashes in 2025, which seems like a lot.  It could be that flying is not a zero risk endeavour and the the odds finally caught up (1:11,000,000) and we had a couple close together.  

What is interesting about both of these crashes is the lack of information about the flight crews being released.  This lack of transparency about the flight crews has certainly led to lots of speculation about the makeup and competency of the pilots.   Obviously the speculation could have been minimized by releasing the information, but it wasn't.   So when people look at the social media presence of Endeavor Air (the operators of the Delta regional flight) it seems reasonable to question the make up of the flight crew and whether or not the pilots might have been promoted due to factors other than strictly competence.   That the cause of the crash seems to be pilot error leading to a landing so hard as to destroy one side of the landing gear, it seems like the pilots qualifications might be important.   It is possible that this was a maintenance issue and the the landing gear just collapsed due to negligence or some other reason.  If this is the case, then likewise it would be valuable to have information about those who did the maintenance.  

Given the fact that this most recent crash was in Canada, it's possible that the Canadian version of the FAA/NTSB might do things differently and more slowly.   Unfortunately, the longer they wait, the more speculation there will be.  

A Little History

 Dan regularly complains that I won't spoon feed (my term) him resources for things.   Well back on October 16th of 2017 (https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2017/10/origins.html)  I posted the following.  It's a list of resources to support the arguments regarding the origin of everything.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Dan has read, studied, or critiqued precisely zero of these resources.  FYI the comments are full of additional resources.   Strangely enough, Dan stayed silent.  

 

 

"A while back Dan made the claim that "God created us in God's image.".   I was a little surprised to hear him so emphatically declare that God had created us.  So, I asked for clarification.  After some initial misunderstanding and confusion on his part, he finally responded with a statement of sorts about what he meant by using the word "create".   As part of the digression, there was a request that I "point" him in the direction of some resources on creation that might be more recent than his extensive reading from 2-3 decades ago.

I "pointed" him to a couple of options, which he responded to with a degree of derision.  Instead of continue down that road, I've decided to post a brief bibliography with some different views from a Christian perspective on the origins of life.

William Dembski- Mere Creation, The Design Inference, No Free Lunch, Signs of Intelligence, Uncommon Dissent,

Jonathan Wells- Icons of Evolution

Jaques Barzun- Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique if a Heritage

Phillip E. Johnson- Reason in the Balance

Michael Behe- Darwin’s Black Box

John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer- Darwinism, Design, and Public Education

Francis Beckwith- Law, Darwinism, and Public Education

Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen- The Mystery of Life’s Origin

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards- The Privileged Planet

Rose and Rose- Alas Poor Darwin

Stephen C. Meyer- Darwin’s Doubt, Signature in the Cell

Guillermo Gonzalez- Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

Alister McGrath-The Dawkins Delusion, Dawkins God

Charles Colson- How Now Shall We Live, Burden of Truth

Denyse O’Leary-By Design or By Chance

Lewis and Barnes- A Fortunate Universe

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exoplanet-census-suggests-earth-is-special-after-all/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/09/scientists-discover-some-of-the-oldest-signs-of-life-on-earth/541251/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1017083700096

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838

http://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/01/should-big-bang-be-disdained.html

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838

https://www.firstthings.com/author/stephen-c-meyer

http://www.discovery.org/a/200


If Dan would like to avail himself of any of these resources, they are here for him.  What will not be allowed is any of the ad hom/broad brush/snobbish attacks on entire groups of people he's chosen at his blog.  Anything of that nature will quickly disappear and never be seen again.   Any, actual engagement with anything specifically mentioned in any of these resources, or any actual refutation will be welcomed.

Monday, October 16, 2017"

Hypothetically

 Hypothetical.

If the child of a former president was getting annual funding for USAID since the Obama administration for providing one meal per day to children in Africa, India, and Bangladesh, at a cost of $1,410 per meal, should that hypothetical funding be reallocated to another person/organization that could feed the same number of children for say $10/meal?   Should the federal government audit this person/charity, or simply pull funding?

Would it make any difference if the person in question had a hypothetical net worth (with spouse) of almost $200,000,000?  

Personally, if someone with a net worth of almost $200,000,000 was receiving millions yearly to do so little "charity", I'd cut the cord immediately.   There's no way private donors would support something this inefficient, but the feds just keep handing out cash. 

TSOTM

 The Sermon on the Mount is one of the scriptural passages that progressive christians love to cherry pick and use to support their social agenda.  Often choosing to ignore the non temporal aspects of this sermon, in favor of proof texting their commitment to secular social justice.  

  But, as with many of Jesus' teachings there are parts that get ignored. 

"Towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives warning after warning. The final one is sharp. Not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the kingdom. Some will stand before Him, listing their works—preaching, casting out demons, performing miracles. But Jesus will say, “I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” It is a gut punch. A moment of reckoning. Jesus has been clear. The easy road leads to destruction. The hard road leads to life. Few find it. Wolves come dressed as sheep. They sound right. They look right. They deceive others. But the greatest danger is not false teachers. It is self-deception. False teachers lie to you. False believers lie to themselves. There are liars in the pulpit and liars in the pews. Jesus contrasts two types of people: those who say and those who do. Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter, but the one who does the will of the Father. Their profession is orthodox in words, but false in life. They call Him Lord, and He is. Their theology is correct, but their hearts are far from Him. They are passionate, saying “Lord, Lord.” They emphasize it, repeat it, speak with fervor. Passion is good, but passion is not proof. They point to their public works—prophesying, casting out demons, miracles. They were known. Respected. Successful. But their success was no sign of salvation. Apparent spiritual activity does not equal spiritual reality. God is so good that He sometimes works through the hands of evil men. Judas preached. Judas performed signs. Judas cast out demons. The disciples returned amazed—“Even the demons are subject to us in your name!” Jesus replied, “Do not rejoice that the spirits obey you. Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” That’s the key. Not the works. Not the words. The name written in heaven. Jesus ends with His own public declaration: “I never knew you.” Imagine hearing those words. Not “You lost your way.” Not “I used to know you.” But “I never knew you.” They were never His. They were in the house of God but not in the family of God. Their faith was a performance, a self-deception, a lie. Goats look like sheep. But goats do not follow the Shepherd. They follow their hunger, their will. They are stubborn, self-willed, independent. They think they are His. They are not. This is a warning against trusting in outward things—in right words, right affiliations, right actions—while your heart remains unchanged. The danger is real. A man can be a preacher, a miracle worker, a missionary, and still be unknown by Christ. A church can be full of passionate people, reciting creeds, singing psalms, preaching truth—and still be a wreck. Because saying isn’t doing. Passion isn’t proof. Success isn’t salvation. In the end, there will be two kinds of people—those who do the will of the Father, and those who only say they do. The question is not merely, Do you call Him Lord?" The question is, "Does He know you?"m Lord?" The question is, "Does He know you?""

 

Reverend Michael Foster 

 

 Personally, I question whether anyone who anchors their theology/worldview in their won personal experience and feelings would probably get a no on that last question.

 

 

Maybe Things Are Not What They Seem

 Dan made much ado about Trump being overturned by a couple of lower court judges and demanded that everyone make definitive claims about how they would respond of SCOTUS finds against Trump.   Well, let's see if his reverence for the judiciary is still what it was, and let's see his support for the more recent rulings on Trump's actions.  

https://www.beaufortcountynow.com/post/86714/massive-conflict-of-interest-found-on-anti-trump-federal-judge.html

https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/judge-mcconnells-daughter-catherine-works-in-education-department-elon-musk-sparks-row-article-118156678

https://instituteforlegalreform.com/press-release/mcconnell-is-unqualified-to-sit-on-the-federal-bench-in-rhode-island/

 https://x.com/america1stlegal/status/1891226933481877590?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

So the states that sued Trump decided to venue shop to find a friendly judge, well known as a highly partisan democrat, who would find in their favor on their initial motion.   That doesn't really sound like the way that an impartial judicial system should be engaged in cases of this import.  

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-declines-block-musks-doge-from-accessing-data-firing-employees

I'm sure that Dan will be applauding this judicial decision because of his reverence for the judicial system. 

Again, WTH?????

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/17/call-your-senators-and-ask-them-to-vote-against-lori-chavez-deremer/

 

I'm not going to waste time reiterating WK's points about this Trump's cabinet picks.  I am going to note that it's these sorts of actions that convince me that every president needs to be  be judged on individual actions, choices, and words when they don't align with the principles espoused during the campaign or with the majority of his supporters.  One only hopes that the GOP and conservatives can force Trump to make a better choice. 

Users

 Dan posted about not being used by users, which seems reasonable.    However, when it comes to politicians, I'd argue that any politician who amasses vast personal wealth while allegedly engaged in public service is the very worst kind of user.   We see plenty of examples of members of congress using their insider knowledge to make millions in the stock market.   We see people regularly manage to amass tens of millions of dollars wile earning less than $200,000 a year.  I'm suggesting that those who pardon family members who've engaged in influence peddling, or who've engaged in spreading lies about political opponents, are also users. 

I'm not advocating for users, I am suggesting that to focus on one or two users (especially one whose net worth dropped while in office), while remaining silent on a multitude of others is probably driven by partisan hatred than by principle. 

Bits of Tid

 There's a meme going around about how the US aid freeze caused a 71 year old woman t die because she ran out of oxygen.  

I guess I'm confused as to why the US is somehow responsible to provide oxygen for people from Myanmar who are in Thailand.   Since when is this burden solely on US taxpayers?  

Strangely enough, the NGO (if your NGO can't operate without G funding, are you really an NGO?) had almost $1.4 billion dollars in revenue in FY 2023.  In 2023 they reported having $630 million in assets, including $169 million in cash.  It seems strange that the US taxpayer is funding a non-profit NGO to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, primarily to import "refugees" into the US.     Also, strangely enough, their top 5 employees salaries are almost $3 million/year.  They also have a reported stock/investment portfolio of nearly $100 million dollars.   It seems like they probably could have managed to buy an oxygen tank or two while they're waiting for more US taxpayer funds.  

https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1889724242628944195?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

I think that there is a lot of Truth to this.  I believe that most people tend to identify with and try to recreate certain things or times when they felt significant.  In this case, I think that it's why everything is cast as a "civil rights" issue, and why everything is compared to "race".  Where I think the problem lies is in not acknowledging that things are different now, that things have improved, and that there might be other alternative ways to achieve ones' goal.  Maybe it's possible to move toward living in 2025, not 1963.  

Another meme that's making the rounds is that the government is buying a bunch of Teslas.   What's being ignored is that this purchase was finalized in 2024 long before Trump became president.   So, those making it a political payback should probably shut up   Is this purchase the best possible use of taxpayer funds, who knows, but that's the only potential argument against it 

 

H/T WK

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/12/wikipedia-co-founder-who-holds-phd-in-philosophy-returns-to-christianity/

I regularly hear people, both Christian and non,  claiming that there are no good arguments for Christianity.   That somehow they have exhaustively examined every argument and found them wanting for some objective reason.   Then we see stories like this, where well educated non believers actually examine the arguments/evidence and realize that there are good arguments for things like the existence of YHWH.    Personally, I think that it's laziness that makes people draw these conclusions.  Primarily laziness in thinking that whatever answers they sought several decades ago have not changed with the times.   I understand that it's easier to form one's opinions decades ago, then just pretend as if nothing has changed or that new information doesn't exist, I just don't find it compelling. 

Responsibility

 I've noticed something recently that is interesting, and probably bipartisan.   Although I'm currently seeing if from the left.

It's that they are reflexively overreacting to almost everything Trump is doing and looking to the courts for salvation.   

What I'm not seeing is an acknowledgement that they totally blew the 2024 election.  That their going all in on Biden, then throwing him under the bus and going all in on Harris, might have been part of the reason why Trump won.  

Maybe replacing an old white guy with dementia with a "black" woman who'd never gotten a significant number of votes on a national election and who sucks at communicating was a bad strategy.    Maybe continuing the practice of rigging primaries in favor of the anointed one is a bad idea.   

Maybe, just maybe, y'all bear some responsibility for the situation you find yourselves in.  Maybe losing elections does have consequences, and maybe that is just how things work. 

WTH?????????

 Trump chooses who to lead the Office of Faith Relations?   Really, of all of the orthodox non heretical Christian leaders around he chooses who?  

I have my problems with the whole concept personally.  History suggests that every time the Church gets too cozy with the government, that it is the Church that ends up losing.   Scripture tells us that the Church will prevail and that the "gates of hell" cannot stop it.  In short, the Church does not need the protection of the government to fulfill it's mission.   

What I expect from the US government is "fair and equal" treatment under the law for all religions.  

What I don't want is a president who doesn't appear to have any significant faith himself appointing a false teacher to protect the Church.  As we see in places like Iran, the Church seems to do pretty well without government protection. 

Half Time II

 Given the fact that the last few half time shows have skewed in the same direction, how about a list of other performers in other genres who should get a shot.  I'm open to suggestions.  FYI. I'm biased toward people who actually sing and play instruments.    This is my list of worthy performers, many of whom I don't particularly like, but still think could be good. 

Earth Wind and Fire

Garth Brooks

Brad Paisley

Taylor Swift

Bon Jovi

Def Leppard

Queen/Lambert

Tyler Bryant and the Shakedown

Gary Clark Jr

Styx

Sammy Hagar

The Eagles

Chris Stapleton

Foo Fighters

Green Day

Lionel Richie/Commodores

Cheap Trick

Little Big Town

Miranda Lambert

Carrie Underwood

Shania Twain

Kieth Urban

Some combination of Run/DMC, Sugarhill gang, and Grandmaster Flash.  

No Doubt/Gwen Stefani

Muse

Coldplay

 

 

 

 

 

Half Time

 There has been quite a bit of talk about the SB halftime show from last Sunday.   For some strange reason, a bunch of old while liberal men are obsessed with proving their left wing credentials by coming up with reasons why it was bad to not like Kendrick Lamar's show.  Their starting place is that those who didn't like it are racist.   

I'm going to start with the obvious.  I (and virtually everyone else on the planet) do not like all types of music or artists in various genres equally, and that is perfectly acceptable.  

Further, I tend to prefer music with at least a minimal level of melody and lyrics that I can understand.   Again, this is a perfectly acceptable position to take on a subject as subjective as music.  

Do I hat all rap/hip hop, no.  Do I hate all black artists, no.  Did I find Kendrick Lamar's halftime show to be boring, unintelligible, and un entertaining, yes.  

As I've done a few shows over the last few years, I've come to realize that the goal in putting together a set list (for the most part) is to be as entertaining as possible for the maximum number of people.   Sometimes that means ignoring the music nerd inside of us, and picking songs people know and like instead of some obscure/cool b side.  

I understand that Lamar has lots of downloads, which may or may not be the most accurate measure of popularity, and that's fine.  To each their own.   I also understand that the SB halftime show is not about pandering to people in my demographic.   This seemed like a "FU" to anyone who's not a Lamar fan.   Again, that's cool, but don't pretend like those of us who tuned it out are de facto racists because we did. 

I think what made it worse is that the game was in NOLA, which has its own rich and diverse music culture and they couldn’t get The Meters, more of Trombone Shorty, or even a single Neville brother.  

USAID

 Lots of hand wringing about the pause/audit of USAID over the past couple of days.   The strangest complaints are from Christian ministries about getting funding cut.   Why would a secular US government be funding Christian Ministries in the first place?   Why would Christian ministries want government funding and all of the restrictions that come with it?

As we see some of the idiocy that USAID has been funding to the tune of millions/billions of dollars, I'm mystified that people are upset about auditing USAID and not upset about some of the bullshit they've wasted taxpayer money on.  

It's almost like folx on the left are against actually being aware of what taxpayer's hard earned dollars are spent on, and eliminating those expenditures that are stupid.  Personally that seems like a losing position. 

Self D

 "Self Determination"

"self-determination, the process by which a group of people, usually possessing a certain degree of national consciousness, form their own state and choose their own government."

"The UN Charter clarifies two meanings of the term self-determination. First, a state is said to have the right of self-determination in the sense of having the right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Second, the right to self-determination is defined as the right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state. Both meanings have their basis in the charter (Article 1, paragraph 2; and Article 55, paragraph 1). With respect to dependent territories, the charter asserts that administering authorities should undertake to ensure political advancement and the development of self-government (Article 73, paragraphs a and b; and Article 76, paragraph b)."

Encyclopedia Britannica

 

" Self determination means that all people have the right to direct their futures; have control over how they live their lives, where, and with whom; and have authority over the resources that support them.

 https://portal.ct.gov/dds/searchable-archive/selfadvocacyselfdetermination/self-determination-fact-sheets/self-determination-principles?language=en_US

I've heard it argued, by Dan and only Dan, that "self determination" requires that every human has the right to roam unfettered across the globe and to live wherever they choose with no restrictions on their movement or settling.    Strangely enough, I haven't been able to find any source that agrees with Dan on this.   

The other day, Trump made some statements about Gaza.  One thing he mentioned was moving those who live in Gaza into other Arab countries where they could theoretically be assimilated.  This got me thinking about why Dan refuses to apply his hunch about self determination to any other country besides the US.   He expect that the US will accept tens of millions of people, without virtually no regulation or management, simply because those people want to live here.  (ignoring what a racist, xenophobic, hellhole the DFL paints the US as)   It seems reasonable to ask, why not demand this same accommodation everywhere?

Back to the history of the Middle East.  Between 1945 and 1948, the international community recognized the need for a Jewish state and partitioned and proposed the first 2 state solution.   In 1948 the Arab world united against the newly formed state of Israel and engaged in a war bent on the total eradication of both Israel and every Israeli citizen.  As part of their campaign the Arabs promised Muslims who left Israel that they would get the first shot at getting their property back and at plundering the Jews.   Unfortunately the Arabs were militarily incompetent and failed miserably, leaving them with all of the people they encouraged to leave Israel, with promise of plunder.   Their response to this situation was to declare these people "palestinians" and put them in camps that were not fit for human habitation.  They used these conditions as the basis to radicalize the "palestinians", into various terrorist groups.   Since then the "palestinian" insistence on eliminating Israel and their refusal to accept a 2 state solution has caused the problem to grow.  

Fast forward to 2025.   Hamas (a terrorist group) controls Gaza, and Egypt (a Muslim/Arab country) has a wall to prevent those in Gaza from entering Egypt.   To this day, no other Arab nation has stepped up to accept these "palestinians" as immigrants.   Instead they've created this false narrative that "Palestine" was an actual nation and that Israel has occupied the nation of "Palestine" and must be removed by any means fair or foul.  

Which brings us back to the question.  Why does Dan not ever call for those in Gaza to be able to exercise their right and move to any of the Arab countries that displaced them in the first place?  Why is Dan silent on the evil of Egypt in constructing a massive wall to keep those in Gaza from availing themselves of the bounty of Egypt?  

I know what his answer will be.   Yet, if "self determination" is truly a universal human right, why not advocate and fight for it everywhere it is being denied?   Why limit oneself to only one country?  

WTH???

 I have a feeling that I'll be writing these posts every so often over the next few years.    But, what in the hell is Trump doing?   Why in the world would he seemingly, seriously, suggest that the US take over Gaza, kick the population out, and bulldoze if to build resorts?    

I completely understand that Gaza is a disaster for those who live there as well as for their neighbors, and the world.   Why in the hell would a president who's campaigned on staying out of wars, champion a policy that likely leads to armed conflict?  If the Muslim nations of the Middle East can't or won't use their billions to offer help to those who share their faith, why would the US get involved?

Yes, the Arab nations should have accepted those who they forced out of Israel when they invaded in 1948.   Yes, they should have taken them, given them citizenship and assimilated them instead of putting them in refugee camps, and treating them like pariahs.   Yes, the Arab world should be investing in Gaza to build something good for the people, not funneling billions to Hamas to engage in terrorism.  Yes, the Arab world should be eradicating Hamas, instead of encouraging them.  No, the US should not unilaterally go into Gaza and bulldoze the place.  

Trump's Greenland thing makes some sense.  The US can develop the natural resources in Greenland and use those beneficially.    Hell, if Trump suggested surrounding Port au Prince and eradicating the gangs and drug traffickers tearing things down and starting over, I might not reflexively oppose that.   At least partially because Haiti has the theoretical potential to be a reasonably well functioning state with an economy based on tourism, Gaza doesn't.  

This is what is so frustrating about Trump.  He's started off strong and is doing what he was elected to do.   But for some reason he can't stop himself from saying things like this and stirring up controversy.  

Don't get me wrong.  Cleaning out Gaza of Hamas and it's terrorist sympathizers, and starting over, is not a categorically bad idea.   The US doing so unilaterally, is. 

Burn, Baby Burn

 Over the last few days we've seen plenty of coverage of immigrants, both legal and not, protesting the recant increase in enforcement of immigration law.  What I've seen and wondered about is why the protesters are flying the flags of the countries that are so dangerous and inhospitable that they claim they were compelled to leave and enter the US without following US law.  Beyond that, they're also burning the US flag.   What in the world is this?  You'd think that at some point, even the most hardcore open borders fanatics would be annoyed at the optics of these protests.

Why this hits me is that it emphasizes a point I've been making about immigrants assimilating.   For decades the goal of immigrants was to assimilate into US culture.   The US is fairly unique in that our culture is not defined by a specific race or ethnic group.   The US has always been about assimilation and building a culture that is more than the sum of it's parts.  Yet rallying under the flags of the places that people have left, to protest US immigration laws, seems to suggest that assimilation is the furthest things from their minds. 

H/T WK

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/01/the-link-between-single-mother-welfare-fatherlessness-poverty-and-crime-5/

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/02/how-is-universal-government-run-healthcare-working-for-canada-in-2024/

WK goes 2 for 2 over the weekend.  He cover two of the left's scared cows and provides data that suggests that their policies are not particularly effective.  We've known for years that Fathers are important, despite what the left would have us believe and the waiting times for the Canadian healthcare  are simply unacceptable. 

Jesus

 There's a meme that gets thrown out often that equates Jesus' family with illegal immigrants.   The story tells us that Jesus' family went to Egypt after Herod wanted to kill Him.    Therefore, Jesus and his family were exactly the same as the illegal aliens that cross the US border.  

Except, Egypt was simply another part of the Roman empire, an adjacent province as it were.   Therefore the comparison is more like someone moving from Missouri to Kansas, than someone illegally crossing from Mexico to the US.  

Nice try. 

Pick My Damn Fruit Cheaply So My Smoothies Don't Get Too Spendy!

 I saw a post today, from a subsidiary or group associated with Act Blue.  For context, Act Blue is the DFL fund raising organization that's been repeatedly accused as being a vehicle for straw donors to avoid campaign finance laws.  

The post showed a sign that read as follows. 

"GOOD NEWS RED STATES!

 YOU CAN NOW PICK YOUR 

OWN FRUITS 

AND VEGETABLES IN THE BLAAZING SUN FOR $5/HOUR"

Yes, "BLAZING"  is misspelled, but I transcribed the sign as it was written.  

So, let's look at what's actually being said.   The sign/post seems to be quite clear that picking fruit and vegetables for $5/hr is pretty much exactly what the left wants for immigrants.   Based on some of the "questions" yesterday by various DFL senators, it seems as though low cost fruit picking labor is critical to keep the prices of their smoothies down.  

In all seriousness, there seems to be a stated desire from the left that immigrants be kept in these low paying, low skill, menial labor jobs and that they should not expect anything else.   They seemingly want an endlessly expanding underclass who's only real purpose is to vote blue if at all possible.   

In the abortion debate we often see those on the left use arguments similar to the pro slavery people (the baby is the property of the mother and hers to do with as she sees fit, for her pleasure or convenience).   Now we see arguments that are similar to the pro slavery position in the immigration debate.  (Without immigrants the price of fruits and vegetables will skyrocket.) 

I guess I just don't see either of those positions as particularly compassionate or civilized. 

DEI

 "All the talk about meritocracy, but it wasn't one of the many qualified black military leaders in actual leadership positions that was hired to run the military, it was a low grade news "personality" that got the position because he was a white man and a Trump loyalist!"

 

1.  Why would or should "black" enter the discussion when searching for a SecDef?   

2.  I love how Dan denigrates Hegseth by ignoring his distinguished military service as a field grade officer.

3. Generally the leap from O6-07 is as much about political connection as it is about leadership or military prowess.   To assume that there is some magic transformation that happens once one achieves flag rank demonstrates ignorance of the military.

4.  The US military is actually set up so that it is under civilian control.     Selecting an active duty officer would require that the officer retire from their position.  

I haven't seen what's been said about the helicopter/plane crash or the F-35 crash, that's got Dan's panties in a wad.  But, if the cause is pilot error because an inadequately trained pilot was flying in DCA airspace, (or an inadequately trained pilot in the F-35) then the process that put that pilot in the left seat should absolutely be scrutinized.  

Personally, it seems like Trump might have said something out of ignorance which led Dan to conclude that his best option was to reply out of ignorance as well.  

In both cases, I'd suggest that it would be wise for everyone to put aside using these tragedies to score cheap political points and allow the process to play out. 

H/T WK

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/01/28/utilitarianism-and-the-moral-life-by-j-p-moreland-8/

 

I regularly hear christians make arguments that are virtually identical to the arguments made by Utilitarians.  Yet when those similarities are pointed out refuse to acknowledge them.  This is a very good, short, look at the philosophy.  

US Code Title 8 Section 1324

 https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses

 

 So, let's talk a bit about US code Title 8 Section 1324.    I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet that Dan or one of his friends has engaged in at least one of the enumerated actions below at least once.  If not, I'd be willing to bet that they would help an illegal alien evade one of the recent deportation sweeps. 

(a) Criminal penalties

(1)(A) Any person who-

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v)(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

 

FYI, the penalties range from fines to 5-20 years in prison.   

FEMA?

 There was some talk by Trump of reevaluating FEMA over the last few days.   As with many things Trump says, I'd like to get some more detail before I evaluate this potential policy change.   However, I do see some potential advantages to restructuring FEMA.  

I do think that there does need to be some federal level emergency response apparatus because natural disasters are rarely constrained by state lines and I can see benefits to a regional response, rather than state by state.   I can also see potential economies of scale with a federal agency as opposed to state by state.  

However, I can also see some advantages to downsizing FEMA to a small core of people who can access resources if needed, but primarily block grants money to states to do their own response.   As with most things I believe that local government will better handle things than the federal government.  

I do think that responding to large regional or national disasters is a legitimate role of the federal government, but also believe that it may not always be the best of most efficient.  

Hopefully, we'll see more detail soon so we can evaluate the specific plan instead of speculating based on a random comment. 

Bits of Tid

 IMO one of the stories that was under reported by the MSM during the Biden/Harris administration, was the fact that they had lost track of 300,000 children who'd crossed the border unaccompanied.   This never seemed to bother many on the left enough to call for action.  Now it's being reported that 75-80,000 of these children have been found.  If this turns out to be accurate, then this is an even bigger condemnation of the Biden/Harris administration.  

https://x.com/swipewright/status/1883245577888022931?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Watch the video and ask yourself, "Was Biden straight out lying, or is this more evidence that he was not in control at all?".

 

 "You should feel free to pose this hypothetical to the regular people in your life and gauge their reaction: “You’re an American college student studying abroad in China. You meet another American studying abroad at the same time. You start dating, get pregnant, and have a kid in a Chinese hospital. You both return home to America, as planned. Is that child Chinese?” I find that for some reason when these examples are turned around into hypotheticals about other countries, people suddenly see quite clearly how preposterous they are. And they will say to you quite directly, “What, no, lol. That’s preposterous.”"

 

 https://x.com/ericabbenante/status/1882996909889011785?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/ericabbenante/status/1883005981577068707?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

This from a couple of far left wing public figures.  

 

 https://x.com/goinggodward/status/1882929012634251613?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

 We also saw this in LA over the weekend, when Trump backed the mayor of LA into a corner regarding the city insisting that it'd take 18 months to clear the debris from the burned areas. More importantly, what stopped Biden from doing this? 

 

 https://x.com/gspellchecker/status/1882950297976455327?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

This video of a newswoman stumping a gender ideologue is amazing. 

 

 https://x.com/gspellchecker/status/1882950297976455327?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

If only there was technology available that would allow the capture of things like rain and melting snow, and preserve it for other worthwhile uses.  

 

 https://x.com/andrewkerrnc/status/1882884048328294848?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Newsome should be impeached, for many reasons.  

Europe

 Elsewhere I've posted examples from Europe regarding the effects of mass immigration, and here are some examples from Denmark.   I could be wrong, but it seems like we should be able to use the data from Europe to help craft an immigration policy that doesn't repeat their results.  

 

According to Dan, looking at data like this and other data from Europe regarding things like crime and immigration is racist or evil or something.  

Football

 I haven't written about football in a while, but it's conference championship weekend so here goes.  

The CFP was interesting.   The complaints about the favorites willing during the first weekend seem strange.  Isn't that what's expected of a favorite?    FYI, Indiana (which got the most crap) only lost to the two teams that played in the final.   

I'm hearing a lot of people suggesting changes for next year, but the one that probably needs to happen is to get the whole thing done by January 3 2026.   Get it done and get out of the way of the NFL.   It'll probably help ratings as well.  

Personally, I'd like to see a Washington/KC Super Bowl this time around.    Selfishly I'd like to see KC get the 3peat.   Seeing something that's never been done should be cool.  

It looks like Chicago and New England won the coaching lottery this year, congratulations.  It'll be interesting to see how they do over the next couple of seasons. 

14

   

 

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

 

With all of the controversy about the Birthright Citizenship issue, it's interesting that the notion has just been blindly accepted of late.   Yet, strangely I haven't seen anyone take much of a look at the actual amendment or the intent of the writer of the amendment.  

As for the amendment itself, it seems clear that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the key phrase.  Obviously this is why tourists, diplomats, and military members children are not automatically US citizens.  So where does that leave illegal aliens.  The most logical argument is that by failing to follow the proper pathway to immigrate to the US legally, the illegal alien has placed themselves outside of the "jurisdiction" of the US and therefore should not get automatic citizenship for their children.   

Jacob Howard, the author, seemed pretty clear on this as well.  "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, ...".

This is an issue I've changed my mind on.   Rather, I simply assumed the previous conclusion and never questioned it.   At this point, I am convinced that "birthright citizenship" for "foreigners and aliens is not a thing.   The very fact that so people of so many nationalities have cynically taken advantage of this policy tells me that, at a very minimum, there needs to be an extended pause in this policy.    That we as a country are giving one of our most precious privileges away to those who don't have the best interests of the US at heart is disturbing.    To be fair, this is a problem that's been exacerbated by the open borders policy of the last 4 years, and might remain a non issue if the numbers were smaller.

I fully support Trump's decision to overturn this poor interpretation of the 14th amendment, even though it might not be fully litigated for years.  It is the right thing to do given the current situation.  

Art has a comment that relates to this.  The NYT (one of the most revered practitioners of real journalism) seems to have given us an interesting dichotomy in their headlines.  

When writing a story critical of a pro-life law in GA, they refer to a "Fetus", in regard to an article in favor of birthright citizenship for any and everyone, they refer to an "Unborn Child".   

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/birthright-citizenship-a-response-to-my-critics/

An excellent piece on the issue, loaded with direct quotes from those who debated the 14th amendment.  

A Brief Summary

 "There's no reason that I can think of to defend very closed borders, and certainly not borders closed to refugees... and refugees, broadly defined, not so narrow as they often are"

 

Dan posted a bunch of regurgitated driven about immigration at the cesspool, and at Art's.   This sentence encapsulates pretty much all we need to know.  

"There is no reason I can think of..."

Once again Dan grounds his political views in himself.  His position seems to be that if he can't think of something, then he must be 100% correct and everyone else must be wrong.  This notion of grounding his beliefs solely in himself cuts across many topics and is always amusing for the amount of hubris it shows.  

"...to defend very closed borders..."

A (purposely) vague and undefined term, which he assumes represents the views of others (I guess, he's never very clear).     In one of his comments at Art's he says "I am not at all opposed to MANAGING moving from one place to another.".   It seems that one way to effectively MANAGE the flow of people across the US border is to "close" the borders, while designating specific places where one can cross the border and the flow can be MANAGED.   What we had during the Biden/Harris administration was a complete lack of MANAGING the border and ended up with untold millions of people who crossed without being MANAGED.    It also seems like (especially post COVID) that it would be a good move to MANAGE those who have various communicable diseases in terms of allowing them into the country.  I can't think of how one would MANANGE to check people, if one allows unfettered entry.  

"and certainly not borders closed to refugees..."

For the purposes of this response, I will say that I do not believe that any of the commenters reacting to Dan's drivel advocate border completely closed to refugees.   So, if it is necessary to misrepresent the position of your opponents in order to make your point, it seems as if you've already lost the argument. 

"...and refugees, broadly defined, not so narrow as they often are"

This right here is what it's all about.  It's about redefining the term refugee so broadly that it essentially becomes meaningless.    It's about being able to refer to the MS13 member crossing to engage in criminal activity as a refugee because maybe it's not safe to engage in criminal activity in their home country.   

I'll close with this.  It would be so helpful if we could actually look at countries that have adopted Dan's theory on immigration and evaluate the results.  I am confident that if we had the ability to do so, and had multiple examples of countries that threw open their borders to refugees, that we might be able to determine whether or not we wanted to replicate the experiences of those other countries here.

" If the gangs in a certain nation or city were so dangerous that you had a greater chance of dying young... or your children had a greater chance of rape..."

If only we could find some examples, and look at the data.  Perhaps compare pre open borders to post open borders.   If only there were examples...

It seems clear that Dan's construct of immigration (really migration) places no value on actually assimilating to the country one migrates to.   Obviously, this can (as does) lead to the migrants settling in enclaves where they live according to the laws and customs of the places they came from, not those of where they end up.   It seems reasonable to conclude that as these migrants destroy the places they migrate to, by turning them into where they left, that they will simply move along  and repeat the process. 

Two Things

1.  Changing Denali back to McKinley seems pointless and kind of ridiculous.

2.  I'm not sure that a US president has the authority to change the name of a body of water that does not fall within US borders, but if you're going to waste time with that nonsense, how about The Gulf of the Americas.   Let's acknowledge the reality that the Gulf touches North, Central, and South America and be accurate. 

A Free Gift

 One of the nicest things Biden has done for Trump was his flurry of pardons/commutations over the last few weeks.  

If y'all haven't been upset by Biden's pardons/commutations of terrorists and murders, as well as his constitutionally questionable preemptive pardons (especially when he promised he's never do such a thing) as well as his pardons for family members, then y'all really can't be that mad at Trump's pardons on day one.    Especially as some of those folks had been significantly over punished by Biden.  

Biden has set a precedent regarding pardons, and gifted Trump the political cover to pretty much do what he wants.  

I'd have preferred a bit more of a selective approach to the pardons, but ...

These pardons are also the gift that keeps on giving.  Accepting a preemptive pardon comes along with a guilty plea to whatever you were pardoned from, and it comes along with the inability to exercise one's 5th amendment rights when compelled to testify.  

I guess it doesn't surprise me when Biden's actions backfire. 

Open Letter

 An open letter to President Trump.

"Git 'er done."

That's all.   Just focus on doing what you said you'd do. 

Is Defamation Mmainstream?

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/01/18/cnn-found-liable-for-defaming-navy-veteran-has-to-pay-5-million/

We just saw ABC settle with Trump, and now this, but some idiots will still revere and venerate the MSM because they're clinging to an outdated memory of what the media used to be,  

Good Riddance

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/01/19/joe-biden-pardoned-37-brutal-murderers-is-that-justice/

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/01/21/what-should-we-think-about-the-democrat-party-based-on-bidens-presidency/

I suspect that when Biden dies folx like Dan will be arguing about how he was a great person and hwo he was one of the best, most moral, people to have ever held the office of president. 

Cease Fire, Closing Argument

 It appears that there is finally a cease fire deal in place between Israel and Gaza.   I haven't seen a lot of details, but there is the return of some/all of the hostages, along with the cessation of hostilities.  I'm obviously pleased that the hostages are finally going home, despite the fact that to many of them are being returned dead.   I'm ambivalent to the cease fire because Hamas will spin this as a victory against the Zionist oppressors, when it's much closer to a defeat for them.   Three thoughts on this news.  

1.  This looks a lot like the return of the hostages by Iran.  A last minute capitulation in order to avoid the harsher consequences of a Trump administration.   The reality is that Trump gets some credit for this, and I doubt we'll ever know how involved his representatives were.

2.  If I had to guess, I suspect that Hamas will violate this cease fire first.  Because that's on brand for them.  Start a small war, get the crap kicked out of them, whine about being oppressed, finally hide behind a cease fire to rearm.  

3.  Any deal that leaves Hamas in control of Gaza is a bad deal.  

Biden gave his farewell address last night and whined about billionaires taking over, as if there weren't more billionaires supporting Harris than Trump and we haven't had Soros, Zuck, Gates, and the like involved in leftist politics for the last 4 years.  He also whined about multiple things that he wants to ban (Dark money, congressional stock trading, etc), yet that he's done nothing about for the last 12 years.  (really 50, but who's counting)    The fact that he thinks that trying to condemn these things as he shuffles out the door is somehow going to make him look good is absurd.   The entire Biden/Harris campaign seems based on the notion that they'll do all kinds of stuff that they ignored if only they'd get elected again.  

Good riddance. 

Hypothetical

 Let's say, hypothetically, that a local church hires a staff member for a specific job.  Let's say that, hypothetically, this job has a written, defined set of responsibilities and that the church has a similar set of written guidelines for their employees.   Let's say, hypothetically, that this employee regularly fails to actually fulfill the responsibilities of their job well.   Let's say, hypothetically, that one of their job responsibilities is to submit all volunteers for background checks.   Let's say, hypothetically, that this has not been done (although it's been discussed regularly for months) for over 6 months.   

What should this person's immediate supervisor do?

How does this person's failure to do their job affect other staff members?

What level of responsibility does the church leadership have for these continued failures?

Now let's say, hypothetically, that the church expects (in writing) all of it's full time/salaried employees to work 40 hours a week.    Let's say, hypothetically, that the church understands that ministry is not a 9-5 M-F job and generally is very accommodating of  the actual schedule worked, and flexible about it.   Let's say, hypothetically, that this employee agreed to work from 6AM-2PM M-F as their primary work schedule.   Let's also say that this employee has never actually worked an entire week according to the agreed upon schedule, and has never worked 40 hours a week in their tenure.  

Is it equivalent to theft to intentionally and consistently work less than the amount of hours you are paid to work, while also not completing the duties of your job?

If the above answer is yes, does the fact that it's at a church make it worse, or is it no different from any other employer?  

Finally, hypothetically.  Let's say, hypothetically, that this person's spouse got a pert time job at the same church.   At some point they realized that with the combined incomes that they were making too much for them to have the taxpayers of the state pay for their health insurance.   They faced a conundrum in that they could not afford the health premiums on their combined income.   (Leaving aside the affordability or not of healthcare for the moment.   The costs are what they are, the choices are what they are.  It's pointless to argue about this here.  Further, the fact that there is a hard cut off on things like this is stupid.)   What do they choose to do?

1.   The part time spouse seeks a full time position that would allow them to afford health insurance.

2.  The part time spouse quits their job so that the taxpayers (the remaining spouses fellow employees) can pay for their health insurance.  

3.  If the answer is 2, is that a moral or ethical choice for a believer?

Ultimately as one of many people who financially support this church, I would have serious questions about the stewardship of the money that members donate to the church.  It seems reasonable for me/us as stakeholders and financial supporters of the church to expect that our donations be spent wisely and that those who are employed would respect the fact that their salaries are paid via donations.  

Thoughts?

Untitled

 " I don't know nothin' 'bout economics, just what makes sense to me"

 

Coming from someone who's written extensively on economics, this is fascinating.  

Old Man Rant

Okay, I've been sitting on this for a while and it's time for a grumpy old man post.  

One of the hot political topics of the last few years is the minimum wage and what the appropriate pay for law skill jobs is.  The result of this conversation is that fast food and convenience store employees are making $15/hr plus here in the people's republic.  As someone who's employed people before, one thing I expected from my employees, before they got a raise, was competence.   

So, what sorts of things do I expect from fast food and convenience store employees for $15+/hr?

1.  Get my order right.   If I order Diet Coke, don't give me Coke.  If I order "unsweet tea", don't give me sweet tea.  If I order something with "no cheese", don't give me cheese.   

2.  Move the line along.  Y'all have extra windows and reserved parking spaces where people are supposed to wait for their food.   Get the simple orders through more quickly.   

3.   (related, but not the fault of the employees)   The point of fast food is the fast.  Stop adding more and more complicated "coffee" drinks, that slow things down.   If you have to add them, don't hold up the line because someone wants 10 Frappachinos.  

4.   When there are more than 3-4 people in line at the convenience store, one employee working a register, and 2-3 employees standing around, open the other registers.  

5.   Learn how to make change.   It's really not that hard.  Especially if the machine does the math for you.

6.   (for customers)   If there's a long line behind you, don't make 5 minutes of small talk with the cashier, don't get involved with having them check 35 lottery tickets for you, know how you are going to pay and have the payment ready.   

Call me crazy, grumpy, and old if you like, but I see this as a simple issue of respect.   People choose to patronize your place of business, so get them though the transaction as quickly as possible and get the transaction correct.   

One last thing, I'm basing a lot of this on interactions at places I visit regularly enough that this isn't a brand new employee thing.

That's enough for now. 

Focus?

 I'm a bit confused by Trumps recent spate of "policy proposals".    I'm not quite sure how they fit with what he campaigned on, and whether or not they make sense as priorities.  

I've addressed the port issue, and believe that Trump is wrong in his blanket support of the union.

I believe that it was a mistake to cede control of the Panama canal, leading to China gaining an inordinate amount of control over a strategic US asset.   I agree that we should look at reacquiring control of the canal.

I don't know enough about Greenland to understand what value it would bring to the US, beyond it's obviously strategic position in the North Atlantic.   I'm not sure how much of a threat the Russian navy is at this point, but a foothold in that area seems less valuable now than it would have been during the Cold War.   I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it's a bizarre thing to prioritize, with very little explanation of the benefits.  

Likewise with Canada.  I know we've all joked about annexing Canada, but seriously.    I get that they have natural resources that would be more assured if Canada was a state, but is that really enough?   Do we really want another 41,000,000 citizens, most of whom are so liberal that they make Dan look conservative?   Again, would there have been strategic benefits to having control of part of the Arctic at one point, sure?   Now, I don't know.   Are the other reasons why having the US extend into the Arctic, possibly.    Is that worth annexing Canada, who knows.  Again, interesting theoretical conversation, but is this a priority?  

Personally, I'd have hoped for focus on the economy, reigning in the federal government, getting his cabinet approved, and dealing with immigration.   But that's me.  

Finally, why in the hell is Trump selling freaking watches?  Especially analogue watches? 

Compasses

https://geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/compass-en.php

 "Regardless of their intended purpose or the complexity of their construction, most mechanical compasses operate on the same basic principle. A small, elongated, permanently magnetized needle is placed on a pivot so that it may rotate freely in the horizontal plane. The Earth's magnetic field exerts a force on the compass needle, causing it to rotate until it comes to rest in the same horizontal direction as the magnetic field. Over much of the Earth, this direction is roughly true north, which accounts for the compass's importance for navigation."

 

A compass is an interesting device.  It is very simple in construction, yet it's effects go far beyond its simplicity.    In short, a compass works because there are objective conditions in the created world that cause the magnetized needle to behave (roughly) the same way at (almost) all times and (almost) all circumstances.   The objective reality is that a magnetic compass as accurate enough, in enough times and places, so as to reliably allow people to find their way to a destination.  Therefore that reliability of pointing in the same direction (virtually) always allows people to define the other directions relative to that fixed direction (magnetic north).    Now because there are a relatively few areas where that earths magnetic field shifts enough to throw off a compass, there are also tools that will allow people to continue to use magnetic compasses to accurately navigate, despite those fluctuations.   

So, if one of (if not the single) distinctive features of a compass is that it reliably and consistently points in the same direction and reliably and consistently allows people to use that fixed/objective information to determine direction of travel, wouldn't that feature apply to a "moral compass" as well?   Would not a "moral compass" provide moral direction that was the same regardless of who and where they used it?  Would not a "moral compass" provide a fixed, objective, indication of the morality of an action?   Is a "moral compass" like a magnetic compass in that not everyone has access to one, and that one must actively seek out a "moral compass"?  If a "moral compass" is something that is innate to all humans, then how does one account for the fact that so many cultures (countries/religions/clans/tribes/etc) hold such different moral values?   

As we are seeing in the UK right now, the Pakistani culture clearly believes that it is moral to rape non Muslim girls.    Which raises the question, where does the "moral compass" of these people point.    Does their moral compass point the same way as most of the rest of humanity which says that raping girls is bad behavior, or does their "moral compass" point in a direction that tells them that their behavior is appropriate?   

If there is a "moral compass", and the metaphor has any utility at all, would not everyone's "moral compass" have to reliably and consistently point in the same direction?   Of what utility is a compass (moral or otherwise) that doesn't point toward the same north as every other compass.   (In acknowledgement of the weakness of the metaphor, there are circumstances where a magnetic compass won't point to the north.   Yet, in those circumstances all compasses will still point in the same direction.  Not in contradictory directions.)  So when someone suggests that one's "moral compass" is broken because it doesn't point the way they believe it should, it only seems natural to wonder about the nature of the "moral compass" and how it relates to a magnetic compass. 

More Rape Ring

 https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1875253382992085163?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/15/child-sexual-abuse-gangs-white-men-home-office-report

There is so much wrong with this.  Most obviously that a UK newspaper is blatantly trying to mislead people as to the nature of the rape ring problem in the UK.   Of course the notion that there are a significant number of "sexual abuse gangs", regardless of their ethnic background, doesn't seem to be a big concern at all.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWP9LxnYmy4

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1875054148489732250?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

UK police asking if a 5 year old had consented to sexual abuse.    What in the hell is going on in the UK?

https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/your-rotherham/girl-by-age-of-16-id-slept-with-100-asian-men-court-told-4323693

1.  Nice victim blaming by the Rotherham Advisor.

2.  Nice job trying to hide the fact that the Asian men were Pakistani.

 https://x.com/msmelchen/status/1875229883044901288?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

For whatever reason Musk has jumped on this rape ring story and has been writing and forwarding relevant tweets on the story.   Yet somehow, the thing that has certain brits pissed off is that Musk is exerting pressure on the UK to deal with the problem, not that there is a decades long history of Pakistani men raping young girls and getting away with it.

 https://x.com/msmelchen/status/1875229883044901288?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1874924677820461073?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

If I was one of the victims, I'd be suing the UK government, the Labour party, the MP's and officials personally, and the media for how this has been handled.   

 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/zakir-naik-courts-fresh-controversy-says-rape-murder-accused-can-be-forgiven-if-/articleshow/114119663.cms?from=mdr

I though that we'd gotten past the "she was wearing..." defense.  

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1874668504835817491?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

https://x.com/msmelchen/status/1874945562912670024?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

https://winteryknight.com/2025/01/07/how-the-uks-secular-left-government-covered-up-sex-trafficking-of-children/

 

Bits of ROP Tid (and abortion)

 https://x.com/lporiginalg/status/1875255851704852652?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

   

This is not wrong at all.

 

 https://x.com/realmaalouf/status/1875602593206170018?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/realmaalouf/status/1875293513442865298?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Using the Twitter link because I can't pull the video out.   But hey, y'all who make apologies for Muslims are silently letting crap like this go uncriticized.  

https://x.com/radiogenoa/status/1875240261921755201?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

While I do not believe that immigration by Muslims as a whole should be banned, public statements like this absolutely should be grounds for deportation or a bar to immigrate.   This is clearly a call for the overthrow of the government.   

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40731035

Yup, this is the Sharia that so many Muslims want to impose on others.  

https://x.com/bgatesisapyscho/status/1874969448442114259?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Words fail me.  

Now, many on the left will simply brush this off as "extremist" language and assert that this does not represent Islam as a whole.   Yet these extremists have millions of followers, and are in the process of increasing the number of rapes in Europe massively. Yet, the leftist/PC folx have made it a cancleable offense to even mention these things.   These animals should be caught and executed, they don't deserve to get deported back to where they came from because they'll be heroes.    

At this point, how can anyone argue that the left wing in Europe doesn't bear a large degree of culpability for every single rape committed by immigrants in general and Muslim immigrants specifically.  

As for leftists in the US, who are busy marching in solidarity with Hamas (also rapists),  your silence on this issue is telling.   Your refusal to acknowledge that the US and Canada are headed down this path if we don't change things simply increases your culpability if/when we see this sort of thing. 

Nothing to See Here

 A large number of people were killed or wounded in NO last week (and the breaking rape circles story), and the cesspool is more interested in a hagiography of Jimmy Carter than even offering a tiny bit of sympathy for the victims or criticism of the perpetrators.  

I know, I know, the cesspool has previously expressed blanket condemnation of any and every act committed by anyone in a demographic group that the left generally supports, and a vague expression of sympathy to the victims of these acts.   I guess that's enough, and those on the right will no longer be hectored about condemning incidents from those the cesspool deems "right wing extremists", every time something happens. 

Narrative v. Data?

 https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1874952833818140678

 

I'm posting the Twitter link because this is a lengthy post, with  multiple charts and graphs and it's easier not to try to reformat it.   I'll note that Shellenberger is hardly some right wing extremist.   

I saw some data the other day bout this trope which showed that the highest number of "right wing" plots and actions was around 160 a couple of years ago.    The things that seemed strange is the combining of "plots" with "actions" or "deaths".  I can't conceive of a situation where a "plot" could ever be equated with (for example) either of the two "recent" truck attacks by non "White/Right Wing extremists".   It's like combining suicides and defensive deaths into the "gun death" metrics as a way to make the problems appear to be something it's not.     I'm not encouraging anyone, especially those on the right, to engage in any violent action.  I am encouraging an accurate and unbiased look at the data to determine the real risks we face.