Fauci deserves prison, but the uncomfortable truth is that he's a scapegoat for all our rage. We suffered at the hands of not just Fauci, but from the mass hysteria and cruelty of neighbors, family, and people in our communities. It completely broke us. It turned those closest to us into abusive ghouls. Trust has been shattered. We haven't reckoned with it. We still haven't recovered. And it will be a long time before we do.
Fauci won't be remembered as a hero, or the voice of science. He'll be remembered as a fame-seeking fraud, a ruthless tyrant, a shameless liar, and a spineless coward. He may never face accountability under the law, but there's at least a little justice in that.
ANOTHER MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF COMMUNISM:
At the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge smashed infants and young children against the Chankiri Tree so they “wouldn’t grow up and take revenge” for their parents’ executions. Soldiers sometimes laughed while doing it. Babies were taken from mothers at S-21 and other prisons and murdered. The regime saw children of “enemies” as future threats to be eliminated.
This is what communism’s “Year Zero” looked like for innocent babies. Share so the world never looks away. #KillingFields #ChankiriTree #PolPot #CommunismIsEvil
White House:
Today, we honor four American heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our nation.
1st Lt. Tyler Feehan
Sgt. Michael Swinton
Sgt. Angel Rampersad
Pvt. Isabella Gonzales
May God hold them in His eternal embrace and comfort their grieving families, and may God forever bless the United States of America. 🙏🇺🇸
Trump isn’t going to scare the IRGC into political compliance. IRGC will keep choosing to burn down its own country. You need to understand that not every entity in international politics thinks the same because they have different incentive structures. “Realism” is unrealistic.
Maybe part of the reason we gravitate so strongly toward nostalgia -- probably even more than our parents did -- is that insanity has now been mainstreamed -- from gender confusion, to the sabotage of law and order, to embracing Communism, to the post-modern assault on language and truth itself, to environmental idolatry, to the popularity of batsh** crazy ideas, like those of the Tates, the Carlsons, and the Candaces.
The state showed up at Joel Salatin's farm and told him selling chickens to his own neighbors was illegal.
He was stunned. "I'm a voluntary farmer. They're a voluntary buyer. We're neighbors. What do you mean? We can't butcher a chicken here and sell it to them?"
Their reasoning? The air was unsanitary. "If one fly enters your processing area, then it's an adulterated chicken and inedible."
They said his windows had to be covered with fly-impregnable mesh. One problem. He processed outdoors, with no walls.
"It doesn't say I have to have a wall," Salatin told them. That sentence became the crux of the showdown.
"They were going to eliminate our farm." He pulled in his senator, his delegate, and an attorney. Three months later, he won.
In the living-room meeting, a legislative aide looked at the regulators and asked: "Gentlemen, is it possible that somebody in Richmond created these rules who could not have conceived of a place like Polyface?"
They had to say yes.
And here's the thing. A microbiology lab had just swab-tested his birds against store-bought chicken. The store-bought birds had been through 40 chlorine baths. His had no antimicrobials at all.
The store-bought chicken averaged 3,600 colony forming units of bacteria. His averaged 133.
That's 27 times more bacteria in the government-approved bird.
"So if it's clean, who cares if it's outside, inside, in the kitchen? If it's clean, it's clean," Salatin said.
The regulator's answer? "Well, that's not all we're concerned about."
The standard was never cleanliness. It was compliance.
Without prices, you cannot calculate.
You are guessing in the dark.
The Soviets guessed for seventy years and produced bread lines in the world's largest wheat exporter.
Mao guessed and forty million people starved between 1958 and 1962.
Chavez guessed and Venezuelans lost an average of 24 pounds in 2017 (the "Maduro diet," locals called it).
Notice the pattern. Planners never lack intentions. They lack information, the dispersed knowledge that only profit and loss can aggregate. Take away the entrepreneur's ability to bid for steel against a rival, and you take away the economy's nervous system.
Socialists respond that real socialism hasn't been tried. It has been tried roughly forty times, on four continents. The corpses keep count even when the professors won't.
It is not an accident that nobody can seem to have a serious conversation about JD Vance’s actual positions.
Every time a legitimate criticism is raised, the criticism is never answered. The person making it is simply branded an establishment Republican, a neocon, a Never Trumper, or some other label meant to make the underlying argument disappear.
That is the problem.
My concern right now is not even primarily JD Vance. It is the political operation surrounding him, which appears determined to prevent any honest examination of his policies, his philosophy of government, or whether his positions are actually conservative.
I can defend Trump’s policies within the bounds of constitutional conservatism. I can explain why a policy is lawful, why it serves the national interest, where the government’s authority comes from, and what limits still restrain it. I do not need to call every critic a traitor in order to make the case.
But when it comes to Vance, too many of his defenders refuse to make the case at all. They do not explain why the policy is conservative. They do not explain how it fits within limited government, civil liberties, federalism, or constitutional restraint. They simply attack the person asking the question.
That should concern everyone.
Calling every critic a Never Trumper, neocon, or establishment Republican does not answer whether Vance’s economic policies are conservative. It does not answer whether his approach to executive power is constitutional. It does not answer whether postliberalism is compatible with the American founding. It does not answer whether his foreign policy reflects ordinary restraint or a much broader ideological break with constitutional conservatism.
Labels are not arguments.
And a political movement that cannot defend its policies without discrediting everyone who questions them is not demonstrating confidence. It is demonstrating weakness.
The conversation is going to happen anyway. The only question is whether Vance’s supporters are willing to engage it honestly, or whether they intend to keep treating scrutiny itself as betrayal.
That does not bode well with me, because conservatives should be able to defend their ideas without demanding immunity from criticism.
I don't get it. He's not a conservative. He's a right-wing retard, and those aren't the same thing.
This is just more stupid agitprop, but I'm increasingly done with people who can't see it.
I still can't get over how good this is. Conservatives have always stuck with the "It doesn't work" argument against Leftism while pointing to their charts and graphs, hoping people will follow along.
But THIS is the argument to make. 👇Leftism is ugly. It's repulsive. It's disgusting. It's lame. It's immoral. It's boring. It's depressing.
This isn't a fight between two competing economic models, one of which happens to work better. This is a fight between beauty and ugliness. Building and destruction. Thankfulness and resentment. Love and hate. Greatness and cowardice. Good and evil.
This is what is called circular reasoning. “Evidence of election insecurity can’t be true because elections are secure, therefore any evidence to the contrary is false.”
I agree, China has been trying to undermine the U.S. for a long time.
But until I see less fawning praise of Xi, Chinese student visas revoked, and a ban on selling China AI chips, I’m not gonna believe anyone is taking this seriously.