Tinkaboutit

[Tinkaboutit @Tinkaboutit1]

@WSJ Ohmygosh. Let's us the opportunity to teach kids resiliency and wgaf responses.

[Tinkaboutit @Tinkaboutit1]

@ElonMusk_LordX My fav color!

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

A Jewish lawyer has been arrested for wearing a Star of David on a London street. Not for assault. Not for provocation. For wearing a 2cm symbol of his faith – because an officer decided it might "antagonise" pro-Palestine protesters. The man was handcuffed, held for ten hours, questioned about his "political beliefs," and told that his necklace could offend.

There it is: the quiet death of equal citizenship. The symbol that once marked Jews for persecution in Europe now marks them for arrest in England.

The police call it "keeping the peace." In truth, it's cowardice turned into policy. It's what happens when the state becomes more afraid of offending the offender than protecting the victim. "Antagonising" has become a crime. Translation: if a mob hates you enough, you lose your rights.

We've seen this drift before. The modern officer speaks the language of HR, not justice. "Tensions are high," "communities are sensitive," "we must be proportionate." All these phrases mean the same thing: the law no longer applies equally.

Protesters can chant "From the river to the sea," wave Hamas flags, and scream "Globalise the Intifada" without consequence. But a Jew wearing a small star is branded a threat to public order.

This lawyer was no agitator. He was an independent legal observer, documenting hate speech. Yet the police accused him of "getting too close" to the protesters, as though proximity to hatred makes you guilty of it. A detective even questioned whether his Star of David might have "antagonised" the crowd – as if the problem were not the mob's hatred, but the Jew's visibility.

The logic is medieval: cover your faith or invite danger. The police might as well have told him to remove it for his own safety – a phrase every Jew in history knows too well.

This arrest doesn't stand alone. It sits squarely in the new two-tier policing of Britain – one standard for those who threaten disorder, another for those who don't. The mob rules by emotional blackmail, and the state plays along. It's the same moral rot we've seen from Birmingham to Manchester: Islamists and Leftists marching under the same banners, denouncing Israel while making Jews afraid to show their faces.

The same logic that banned Israeli football fans in Birmingham now criminalises the Star of David in Kensington. The Leftist–Islamist alliance has found its instrument – not the crowd, but the police themselves. And Parliament, packed with MPs who mistake cowardice for tolerance, lets it happen.

We've reached the point where a man wearing a symbol of Judaism is treated as a potential provocateur, while those chanting for the destruction of the Jewish state are treated as "community voices." This isn't neutrality. It's inversion.

The British police force now treats feelings as facts and law as optional. If a group claims "offence," it wins by default. If you resist, you are labelled the aggressor. This is the bureaucratic form of mob rule – polite, procedural, and deadly to principle. And at its core lies the same alliance corroding our politics: a Left that sees Jews as colonialists, and Islamists who see them as infidels. Together they've built a climate where antisemitism parades as virtue – and the state, desperate not to be called racist, acts as their shield.

The issue is not one Jewish lawyer or one small star. It's the precedent: that British law now bends to those who hate Jews more than to those who are Jewish. Once a country accepts that logic, it has already traded freedom for fear. And history shows that trade never stops at the synagogue door.

The police say they were preventing "provocation." But when did the presence of a Jew become provocation? When did the Star of David – symbol of faith, memory, and survival – become a public order offence? The answer is when Britain forgot who it was.

"A Jewish lawyer has been arrested for wearing a Star of David on a London street."

[Chris Olmstead @ct_olmstead]

It's INSANE how few Wisconsin reporters are touching this INSANE story. 197 days ago, Jill Underly hid from voters more than 200 pedophiles at schools to win 4 more years leading WI's schools.

Hats off to @danielle_duclos & @CapTimes for this insane story.

[Michael Amici @sysavatar]

@DanCrenshawTX Today's a day to step back from the vitriol of our politics and remember that we're all Americans here. The wave of white hot woke hatred by some does the country no good. Can we please have one day that we celebrate our great country without such nonsense. Enjoy a peaceful 4th

[Paul Anleitner @PaulAnleitner]

2024 was a vibe shift.

What trends can we expect in culture in 2025?

Here are 5 predictions based on my cultural analysis, starting with the “Religious Renaissance” hitting the Joe Rogan Experience in 2025. 🧵

[Sarah Kliff @sarahkliff]

Medicaid is a more cost-effective way to save lives than lots of other things the government pays for, like vehicle inspections or some cancer treatments.

More from me + @sangerkatz on a big new Medicaid study:

https://t.co/fQ7dl4PnmH

[Aya Velázquez @aya_velazquez]

Great documentary by @60Minutes exposing the German censorship regime. It depicts our reality here very well - my only objection would be that the reality in Germany is even worse.

German censorship measures against so-called "hate crimes" are instruments of political persecution of dissenters, because they are not applied equally on all people, but only selectively on a few.

To cite an example, during the Corona years, critics of the state's Corona measures were allowed to be called superspreaders, conspiracy theorists, granny murderers, wimps, asocial free riders, assholes, morons, rats, stupids, and the like, without being prosecuted. One was allowed to think loudly about refusing hospital treatment to unvaccinated people, not letting them leave the country, or even denying them access to supermarkets. All of that was totally legal, fine, and widely spread by corporate media.

In theory, we have a law against the incitement of hatred against a group of people in Germany, called "Volksverhetzung". Was this "Volksverhetzung"? Of course not. It was allowed to openly express death wishes and death threats against unvaccinated people - there is not a single verdict on this. Countless times such cases were reported to "Hate Aid", an organization reporting hate crimes to state prosecutors - no reaction, no forwarding to a public prosecutor's office, absolutely no one cared. In Germany, anyone who criticizes the government can be insulted, harassed and threatened.

Meanwhile, critics of the state's Corona measures had to endure home searches, police violence, criminal prosecution, account and job terminations, and surveillance by the "Verfassungsschutz", German Interior "Intelligence" service.

Members of the neoconservative/ rightwing AfD party ("Alternative für Deutschland" = "Alternative for Germany") can be legally called "Nazis" - there is not one single successful conviction against this. To call AfD party leader Alice Weidel "Nazi-Schlampe" ("Nazi slut") is totally ok for a German court.

Also not mentioned in the documentary is our new "defamation of the majesty law" § 188 StGB, which punishes defamation against politicians more severely than against private persons with up to three years in prison (for regular plebs like us only up to two years 😉). Needless to say that prosecutors also pursue defamation against politicians and other public figures with much more passion and commitment than they do against regular people.

A member of the German government, Minister of the Economy Robert Habeck, has filed more than 800 complaints against ordinary citizens. Those affected received police home raids at six in the morning, their electronic devices were taken and their families, including children, were often traumatised by the event.

Home searches, often in the context of so called "Action Days against Hatred" are part of the "New Normal" in Germany, which came into action at the latest in 2020. But the prosecution applies only to some, not all citizens equally. The new German censorship regime is primarily an instrument of political persecution of any form of resistance against the government.

The case of @CJHopkins_Z23, today mentioned by @JDVance, is just one of thousands of cases. He is convicted for posting the cover art from his book on X, containing a swastika shining under a mask - whereas big German tabloids like Spiegel, Stern etc. cheering for the government can use swastikas on their front pages as much as they want, without getting into any legal trouble.

There is de facto no more equality before the law in Germany.

The new 60 Minutes docu on the German censorship regime is rightly shocking the world. However, the reality here is even worse.

[The New York Times @nytimes]

Patients and insurers have been left with big bills as a little-known company makes millions off a federal drug program meant to help the poor.
https://t.co/bjvh1OOjOF

[Tinkaboutit @Tinkaboutit1]

@WSJ @WSJopinion Increased competition will help.

[Tinkaboutit @Tinkaboutit1]

@heathem1221 Are you purposefully this dense?

[Tinkaboutit @Tinkaboutit1]

@PatriciaKempton Good mama, civilized son. Congrats.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr @RobertKennedyJr]

Yes there is, Tim. It is called the U.S. Constitution. That is exactly what prevents the government from stifling dissent by labeling something “hate speech” or “misinformation.”

Yes, I understand, some forms of speech are repugnant, such as expressions of racial bigotry. Problem is, the category of hate speech expands to include everything the censors “hate.” As for misinformation, who decides what is true and what is false? The government? In authoritarian countries, yes, the government. That is why freedom of speech lies at the very heart of democracy.

[Tinkaboutit @Tinkaboutit1]

Do you remember when you joined X? I do! #MyXAnniversary

[Benjamin Ryan @benryanwriter]

Pamela Paul writes for @NYTOpinion:

In U.S. Gender Medicine, Ideology Eclipses Science. It Hurts Kids.

Imagine a comprehensive review of research on a treatment for children found “remarkably weak evidence” that it was effective. Now imagine the medical establishment shrugged off the conclusions and continued providing the same unproven and life-altering treatment to its young patients.
This is where we are with gender medicine in the United States.
It’s been three months since the release of the Cass Review, an independent assessment of gender treatment for youths commissioned by England’s National Health Service. The four-year review of research, led by Dr. Hilary Cass, one of Britain’s top pediatricians, found no definitive proof that gender dysphoria in children or teenagers was resolved or alleviated by what advocates call gender-affirming care, in which a young person’s declared “gender identity” is affirmed and supported with social transition, puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones. Nor, she said, is there clear evidence that transitioning kids decreases the likelihood that gender dysphoric youths will turn to suicide, as adherents of gender-affirming care claim. These findings backed up what critics of this approach have been saying for years.
“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” Cass concluded. Instead, she wrote, mental health providers and pediatricians should provide holistic psychological care and psychosocial support for young people without defaulting to gender reassignment treatments until further research is conducted.
After the release of Cass’s findings, the British government issued an emergency ban on puberty blockers for people under 18. Medical societies, government officials and legislative panels in Germany, France, Switzerland, Scotland, the Netherlands and Belgium have proposed moving away from a medical approach to gender issues, in some cases directly acknowledging the Cass Review. Scandinavian countries have been moving away from the gender-affirming model for the past few years. Reem Alsalem, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, called the review’s recommendations “seminal” and said that policies on gender treatments have “breached fundamental principles” of children’s human rights, with “devastating consequences.”

But in the United States, federal agencies and professional associations that have staunchly supported the gender-affirming care model greeted the Cass Review with silence or utter disregard.
There’s been no response from the Department of Health and Human Services, whose website says that “gender-affirming care improves the mental health and overall well-being of gender diverse children and adolescents” and which previously pushed to eliminate recommended age minimums for gender surgery. Nor has there been a response from the American Medical Association, which also backs gender-affirming care for pediatric patients.
When I reached out to H.H.S. officials, they declined to speak on the record. The A.M.A. referred me to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society. The Endocrine Society, the primary professional organization of endocrinologists, told me, “the Cass Review does not contain any new research that would contradict the recommendations made in” the society’s own guidelines. (Cass’s mandate was to assess the quality and importance of existing research.)
When the NPR station WBUR interviewed Cass, it asked the American Academy of Pediatrics for a response to the review. The pediatricians’ group issued a statement that said nothing about the Cass Review. Instead, it denounced what it characterized as “politically infused public discourse” and promised to stay the course, conducting its own research review, which it agreed to do last year under intense pressure. In later comments to The Times, Dr. Ben Hoffman…

[Tinkaboutit @Tinkaboutit1]

@WSJ Basic element for a free society. Scary that this even has to be said.

[TheBlaze @theblaze]

Blaze Media Investigative Journalist @TPC4USA has now been taken into FBI custody for his J6 reporting

Watch:

[Liz Wheeler @Liz_Wheeler]

This week…

A journalist fined $300K per year until she reveals her confidential source.

Another journalist taken into FBI custody for his reporting on Jan 6th.

Don’t think they won’t come for us next.

[Kassy Akiva @KassyAkiva]

Harvard is sending students to a school with deep terrorist ties this summer.

When I asked them to comment on partnering Birzeit University, which has barred Jews from campus and has a student government run by Hamas, Harvard defended the upcoming program.

THREAD:

[Wisconsin Right Now @wisconsin_now]

The world is becoming a terrifying place.