The truth about Americans and Europeans:
Most Americans would love to see the ancient and beautiful buildings of Europe. They are impressed by Europe's history and recognize how it shaped America's own story. And they also acknowledge that Europe has some amazing food.
Most Europeans would love to see the amazing national parks of America. When they do visit they are baffled and impressed by the size of our stores, homes, and country. And they also may gain a few pounds but they love America's food, too.
When Americans and Europeans meet overseas ten out of ten times we tease each other about where we're from. And then we get along great most of the time after that.
Don't fall for all this division between America and Europe. Sure there are cultural, language, and value differences.
But overall if you were all just sitting in the same room together you'd have a great time. Online focuses us on our differences rather than what we enjoy about each other.
About 90% of everything in the last 10 years feels like someone's AI testing a bunch of weird scenarios to see how we react so it can narrow down how to best control us without us knowing about it
@seanmdav What we've learned is that sound judicial temperament -- not age, education, or experience -- is the single most important thing for a judge to have. Without it, they are tyrants, ruled by ego and emotion.
one thing trump figured out between his terms is that, given legacy media will essentially function as the opposition party while dems are out of power, it's far less disruptive to trump's agenda if their ire is focused on people who work for him, rather than on him personally.
Unbecoming and inappropriate clothing for the role and place is a problem that runs across the political spectrum.
Top offenders -
Zelensky
Fetterman
Musk (No, he doesn't get a pass - we are fair and balanced here)
Reminder that everybody attending Kamala’s rally in DC tonight wanted mandated masks and vaccinations a few years ago. They wanted society segregated based entirely on forced injections. They reported family, friends, and neighbors over it. They were willing to close your business down over it. They were willing to remove your child from school over it. Kick you off a plane over it. Let your loved one die alone in the hospital over it, or deny you medical help if you so needed it. They wanted you to literally “show your papers” to grocery shop. They welcomed your arrest, to have to pay outrageous fines, and to be put in jail over it. And they called those that wouldn’t comply filthy, diseased, and even enemies.
And that entire time, through all their allegiance and obedience to government tyranny — they didn’t scream for bodily autonomy, they made no fuss about fascism, and went completely blind to noticing the Nazi Germany parallels.
Funny that.
@JackPosobiec Progressives are goal-oriented, while conservatives are principle-oriented.
That's why progressives "principles" change over time, as they accomplish their goals, whereas as conservative principles remain largely unchanged over generations.
Every proposed program to help improve the lives of American citizens prompts this immediate protest in Washington: "where do you suggest we find the money for that??"
But soon as there's a proposed new war, this is what we always hear:
Most people remember how dramatic the Arab Spring was in the early 2010s, where people protested censorship in the Middle East, where governments explicitly stated what could and could not be shared by journalists in the media.
All of the western NGOs were screeching about the barbarism and injustice of these policies.
It is interesting (hypocrisy is a given in leftism so using the word is passé), that Canada has quietly passed a far more sinister and powerful censorship on freedom of expression and no one has been shocked by it.
More importantly, it’s interesting such a radical law can be found passed without so much as an opinion poll from the general public which believes they live in a “democracy”.
Canada has made it mandatory for anyone blogging on YouTube to “register” with the government.
That this seems innocuous is precisely a core element of its sinister nature. No one can call it censorship because it is more sophisticated, it is implicit.
They can plead innocence.
They can never be caught red handed, like the leader of a drug cartel who never does his own dirty work.
Once you need to register yourself to speak, or write or express yourself, suddenly, “non registered” entities become a defined group that can be punished, fined and ultimately silenced.
And the terms by which they are silenced are not as clearly outlined as in overt censorship as might have been seen in the Middle East. They can be as arbitrary as the regime wishes, as quickly changing.
Everyone knows the most powerful censorship of all is self censorship, which begins as people begin to fear losing their “registration”.
Administration, flying on the wings of technological advancement, helps tyrannical regimes impose and enforce their otherwise impossible resurrections and punishments.
Afterall, when despotism is only a tap of an iPad screen away, what can possibly stop the appetite of man, ever whet for more and more control over those beneath him?
The tyranny and despotism the west accuses in the east, is increasingly revealing itself to be projection of the highest order.
Behind the screen of frail words of their constitutions, and names like democracy, western governments enact the most powerful forms of despotism, the more powerful for not being named for what they are.
Musing on the fact that no major figure went to prison following the 2008 financial crisis. Authorities took literal interpretations of statutes and said no case could be made.
But to indict Trump we are using ancient statutes, RICO law designed for the mafia, etc.
When they want you, they can get very creative, bend the law any which way. When they want to protect you, they say the law just isn’t there, their hands are tied.
The AI rollout was hilarious because despite the propaganda all being left wing, CHAT-GPT had a right wing view on controversial subjects, or it was forced to say it couldn’t answer. They had to hire hundreds of people to try leading it to false conclusions.
On this John Eastman thing. If you flip through a bar journal, at the back there are usually reports on disciplinary actions. Disbarments follow from stealing from clients or blatant conflicts of interest.
What you never see is lawyer punished for giving legal advice in a gray area. That’s what Eastman did - it’s what lawyers are supposed to do.
Postmoderns rarely debate the merits of an idea.
What they do is try to is "unmask" your hidden motive, or how you're just using the idea as an excuse to advance your own interests.
They don't want prove you're wrong, they to make you look like a bad person with a hidden agenda
I may not like Trump, but I love our Constitution, so I feel compelled to speak out.
The latest indictment, which I encourage everyone to read, attempts to criminalize Trump’s routine misstatements of fact and law in connection with the 2020 election.
But this is precisely the sort of wrong that must be addressed politically under our Constitution, not criminally.
Our system can’t survive if political disputes are removed to the criminal realm. There’s no limiting principle to such an approach.
Remind me again which former presidents have been indicted for going to war without congressional approval, spying on Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment, abusing emergency declarations to bypass checks and balances, or ignoring legal advisers to pursue a clearly unlawful policy.
We don’t criminalize these actions, egregious as they are, because they are matters of political contention. We’re allowed to disagree about the workings of our constitutional system without fear of criminal reprisal.
Politicians are constantly misguided and just plain mistaken about a lot of things—often remarkably so. It endangers all Americans to begin treating politicians’ false beliefs regarding political or constitutional matters, even when they’re obviously wrong, as criminal offenses.
We impeach people for violating the public trust—for political misconduct or serious incompetence. We reject them. We vote them out. We never again elect them.
We don’t imprison them.
[Catholics] are so scared of being too outside the culture that they willingly sacrifice their integrity rather than be seen as uncool or weird. https://t.co/vNLW7jXx2f via @CrisisMag
I believe in monarchy. I went to Latin Mass today and offered my reception of Holy Communion for King Charles III.
The king’s claim that he is head of a church and his vow to uphold Protestantism are sinful acts and not to be celebrated.