Wednesday, January 1, 2025

The Liberty Equation



Freedom is a proximity issue; liberty is about how we engage life. I would argue, the issue of liberty is perhaps the single most consequential facet of the next several years that few people are discussing.

The Tech Bros as they are now colloquially called, are building the tools for rapid expansion of the surveillance state.

Palantir (Peter Thiel) is leading the way to connect Real ID with facial recognition; the system has both military and domestic application. Oracle (Larry Ellison) is building out cloud storage and data processing with speeds to capture massive data and link the tools. xAI (Elon Musk) is building the refinement system for specifically directed targeting. In whole these networks are creating the tools for the Surveillance State.

As we learned with the Obama administration. Every tool within this process is but one election away from being a weapon. However, the fully engaged AI surveillance system has some very predictable probabilities.

Within the AI surveillance system, which I continually assert is not compatible with liberty, the tools are being designed to avoid certain outcomes.

A nuclear weapon kills everyone within the same proximity. AI used as a weapon has the ability to skip certain targets as defined by the people who deploy the detonation.

While the future forecast says that everyone remains essentially “free,” the same cannot be predicted for “liberty.” Some people will be more equal to constitutional protections than others. This is the baseline for my opposition to the specific AI weapon being created by the Tech Bros.

At a certain point this weaponized AI conversation gets very alarming.  Using a reference that some might remember, essentially capability shifts from Truckers being debanked for opposing government, to Truckers being de-personed for opposing government.  The Truck is disabled before the Trucker arrives at the protest point, and the Trucker is identified and warned proactively.  Phones stop working, credit cards and atm’s are moot, GPS is disabled, and the Trucker encounters a place where every tech interface rejects his/her transactional intent.

Now, insert “Politically Exposed Persons” (PEP) as defined by the political control operators wherever you see the word Trucker to expand the point.  The PEP might be “free,” but does the PEP have liberty.

In building the system there are going to be key inflection points where an American engineer on the process might take exception with the contracted tool being built.  How do the Tech Bros avoid that problem, H1Bs.


And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- New Year's Day





U.S. Supreme Court to rule on major cases in 2025 ranging from TikTok to ghost guns



Supreme Court terms begin and end in October, and heading into the new year there are major cases awaiting.

 By Casey Harper | The Center Square

Published: December 31, 2024 11:45pm

(The Center Square) -

The U.S. Supreme Court has released a string of landmark rulings recently, from sending the abortion issue back to the states to granting a measure of presidential immunity to the overturning of Chevron deference, significantly curtailing federal rulemaking power.

Supreme Court terms begin and end in October, and heading into the new year there are major cases awaiting.

Here are five of the biggest cases in which the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in by the end of this term:

Tik Tok Ban

Many lawmakers and national security experts have raised concerns about the invasive software attached to Tik Tok, a hugely popular entertainment app that reportedly has about 150 million active users.

China is the parent company for the app and has access to millions of Americans personal data through the Tik Tok software, which is unusually invasive and collects much more personal data on its users than other similar apps.

President Joe Biden signed into law a ban on the app unless it is sold to a U.S. company, citing these concerns.

While that ban had bipartisan support, President-elect Donald Trump weighed in on the case this week, asking the Supreme Court to delay the ban from going into effect. [...]

Transgender Surgeries for Minors

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last fall in United States v. Skrmetti, a case that considers the constitutionality of a Tennessee bill that bans transgender surgeries and hormones for minors. [...]

Ghost Guns

In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives faces a legal challenge to its Biden-era rule attempting to block “ghost guns,” firearms without serial numbers that can be 3-D printed or put together by someone who acquires individual parts.

In particular, kits can be bought online that allow buyers to assemble a weapon. The case in question will require the justices to determine whether a disassembled kit of firearm parts is still considered a “firearm” and therefore subject to federal rules, especially rules requiring a serial number. [...]

Age Verification for Pornography

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments Jan. 15 in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a legal challenge to a Texas law requiring pornography sites to use age verification to prevent minors from seeing their pornographic content.

Critics have cited free speech concerns while proponents of the law have pointed out that there is legal precedent for age verification which is required for other products like alcohol and tobacco and has been required to view R-rated movies in theaters. [...]

Environmental Impact

The Supreme Court in December heard oral arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, a case where justices will consider just how expansive the environmental constraints can become on federal agency actions.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies are required to assess the “foreseeable impact” on the environment of their actions.

However, just how broad that assessment must be is up for consideration.


Please read the entire article at:

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/us-supreme-court-rule-major-cases-2025



Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


A Conspiracy to Overthrow the 2024 Elections


Eight years back around this time of the year, some Hollywood has-beens urging Electoral College representatives to not vote for Trump, whom they deemed unfit to be President, before the results were certified. They hoped to convince enough Republican electors such that Trump's electoral college tally would be reduced to less than the required 270.

Concurrently, Electoral College representatives  death threats while anti-Trump  and  sprung up in Democrat-run states. These undemocratic efforts backed by Democrats failed and Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017.

This time, the Democrat insanity isn't overt -- possibly because the Democrats spent four years pushing the 'insurrection' hoax and used it during the bumbling word salad chef's fumbling campaign. Perhaps the Democrats don't want to appear blatantly hypocritical by rejecting Trump's emphatic victory. Perhaps they know their efforts will be futile and have settled to peddling hoaxes during the Trump presidency.

However, not all Democrats think a Trump Presidency in 2025 is unavoidable.

Recently, The Hill  written by Columbia Law Review editor-in-chief Evan Davis and former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal David Schulte, directed at Congress. The authors quote Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to make the case that Trump's disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution:

“No person shall… hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

To support their insurrection claim, the authors cite evidence from three forums:

The first forum is Trump’s second impeachment trial. 

"...On Jan. 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection.” At the trial in the Senate, seven Republicans joined all Democrats to provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office. Inciting insurrection encompasses “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution “or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,” the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3."  

The authors conveniently forget that Trump was cleared by the Senate and that the impeachment failed.

The second forum cited is the Colorado Supreme Court ruling to remove Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment disqualification. The authors quote the Court ruling that “found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.”

However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump's favor in their unanimous verdict that "states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 for federal offices, especially the Presidency."

But the authors claim the "Supreme Court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection," hence Congress can reject electoral votes when they convene on Jan. 6.

The authors add that "counting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law, this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question."  

The authors recommend that Congress reject the electoral vote based on the Electoral Count Act, which allows for an objection if "the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not 'regularly given.'"

"To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by a majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president."  

Yes, you read that correctly -- they still think Kamala, who lost both the Electoral College and popular vote, can be president.

The authors also cite testimonies from the 'bipartisan' inquiry of the January 6th House Select Committee.

This section is littered with the following falsehoods.

"Trump unlawfully demanded that his vice president, Mike Pence, throw out votes in the Electoral College for political opponent Joe Biden, a power he did not have."

".....while the riot was in progress, Trump used Pence’s rejection of his demand to further enflame the crowd and cause them to chant “Hang Mike Pence!”

The piece concludes that the Democrats must "take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution."  

So what do we make of this?

The piece, littered with myriad debunked Democrat lies, isn't even remotely persuasive. Trump's emphatic victory last month was a rejection of those lies by the public; it was also a verdict against law enforcement and judicial overreach.

The self-righteous often lack self-awareness, hence the irony that an insurrection hoax was being used to mount a case for an insurrection wasn't comprehended by the authors.

What is amazing is that The Hill deemed this worthy of publishing. Before an article is published it is fact-checked while the editorial board decides if the piece is worthy of public consumption. But for this piece, the factual inaccuracies and the unintended irony were ignored.

There's a slim possibility that the goal behind the publishing of this piece is that the outrage caused will boost traffic to their website.

The piece received intense backlash on social media.

The Hill may claim they allow all kinds of opinions. But they haven't published articles about unfairness in the 2020 elections?

The Hill didn't cover the influence of Zuckerbucks on the 2020 elections, Twitter blocking the Hunter Biden story, or former intelligence officials falsely claiming that the laptop story was Russian disinformation. All The Hill's articles on the 2020 elections that appeared seem to be pushing Democrat narratives.  

This serves as another reminder that outfits like The Hill serve as mouthpieces for the Democrats. To call them pro-Democrats is an understatement -- they are the Democrats.

This absurd piece involves a conspiracy to overturn the 2024 elections and must be regarded as the Democrats thinking aloud.

The NYT, the WaPo, etc., are the foremost Democrat mouthpieces, while The Hill and Politico are tier 2 propagandists aspiring to achieve tier 1 status. Perhaps decision makers at The Hill think that they will achieve tier 1 status by publishing such pieces, i.e., Democrats will be impressed by their propaganda.

Like all propagandists, The Hill doesn't care about their credibility after publishing such a shoddy article. Their goal is not to cover facts but to relentlessly push hoaxes, and they do so unrepentantly.

This should be a wake-up call to those who assume that the Democrats have surrendered to the inevitability of a Trump presidency. They may not be able to prevent Trump from being inaugurated, but they will most certainly place impediments during his Presidency.

Hopefully everyone, especially President Trump and his team, remains very alert.



2024’s Biggest Loser Was Barack Obama

From 2024’s vantage point, is there any way to look at Barack Obama’s legacy but as a tragic blight on American history?



As desperate, phony, and even dangerous of a campaign Democrats ran this year, and as embarrassing as the outcome was for all of them, nobody came out looking more pathetic than Barack Obama. From 2024’s vantage point, is there any way to look at his legacy but as a tragic blight on American history?

In the final months of the campaign, Obama seemed to know the outcome of the election would say just as much about him as it would about Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or Donald Trump. And, like all realistic Democrats, he knew that the nominee he supported was on track to lose. His behavior in those days was nothing short of appalling.

Obama first stood by and said nothing when George Clooney, who I had no idea was Democrat royalty, announced in The New York Times that Biden should give up his reelection campaign, as if there was some obvious plan as to what the party would do in that event. Obama did nothing and said nothing as his former vice president was squeezed out, and then he offered what should go down in Democrat history as the most uncomfortable, underwhelming endorsement a former president has ever offered a subsequent nominee. Obama participated in a highly staged phone call with Harris and, with all the enthusiasm of a mortician, told her, “It appears that people feel very strongly that you need to be our nominee.”

It never got any better, and it climaxed in the shocking display of Obama belittling black men. Because he shared in their race (somewhat), Obama felt they should do as he said. “You’re coming up with all kinds of reasons and excuses,” he told them to their faces with his arms crossed and brow furrowed. “I’ve got a problem with that because part of it makes me think — and I’m speaking to men directly now — part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president.” Obama literally wagged his finger to tell these grown men, “That’s not acceptable. This shouldn’t even be a question.”

If that weren’t crazed enough, he then trotted out wife Michelle to further nag male voters. “So fellas,” she said at a rally in Michigan, “before you cast your votes ask yourselves what side of history do you want to be on.” She said male “rage” is what could cost Democrats the election. “If we don’t get this election right,” she nagged, “your wife, your daughter, your mother — we as women will become collateral damage to your rage. So are you men prepared to look into the eyes of the women and children you love and tell them that you supported this assault on our safety?” (Can we get one of those overpaid consultants to advise women in politics that there’s nothing frank or authentic about referring to men as “fellas?”)

Generally speaking, Democrat men have never been accused of being too manly, but it remains a mystery as to who came up with the idea to browbeat them into voting for Kamala. If it was Obama’s idea, man has he lost his magic. And if it wasn’t his idea, man has he lost his magic.

“Hope and change” became, “Do what mommy and daddy said.”

Then Trump won decisively, the first Republican in 20 years to win the popular vote. It’s the second time Trump defeated the Obama-backed candidate and the second chance Trump has to reverse the havoc Obama and his legacy have wrought.

Consider that Obama’s supreme legislative achievement was a health insurance industry overhaul. The ultimate result has been higher prices and fewer insurance options. Obama supported Hillary Clinton as his successor, discouraging Biden. She was ended by Trump. In 2020, Biden became the Democrat nominee with the eventual support of Obama, only to preside over breakouts of foreign conflict, hyperinflation, rampant crime, and unmitigated chaos at the southern border, none of which was inevitable but in fact instigated by Biden’s agenda. Now voters are once again turning to Trump, the man who made his entry into the Obama-era of politics by demanding proof of Obama’s birth certificate, which Obama, the sitting president of the United States, responded to by publishing it. Sad!

America is done with him. Obama was 2024’s biggest loser.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


5 Things to Watch For When Parliament Returns in 2025

 The sudden resignation of Chrystia Freeland from cabinet and ensuing calls for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to resign ensured that there was no quiet time in the House of Commons before Parliament rose for the holidays.



With all opposition parties saying they will vote non-confidence in the government, and open questions remaining about whether an early election may be called and who will lead the Liberals in the new year, 2025 could start off with a bang.

Here are five issues to look for with Parliament set to return on Jan. 29, 2025.

Tories to Push Non-Confidence Vote in Committee

The Conservative party introduced three non-confidence motions in the House of Commons toward the end of 2024, all of which failed to bring down the Liberal government. In the new year, the party will try a different tactic to force an early election: introducing a confidence motion through a parliamentary committee.

Conservative MP and chair of the public accounts committee, John Williamson, said the committee will be recalled early, on Jan. 7, to discuss a motion of non-confidence. Committees are able to adopt reports that include recommendations for MPs in the House to take certain actions. So a successful motion passed in committee would allow the House to vote on it as an official motion of non-confidence.

Williamson says he’s also prepared for the possibility of the five Liberals on the committee filibustering to delay a vote. He says he’s prepared to schedule additional meetings throughout the month of January until a motion is passed. Williamson said the motion is to be tabled in Parliament when the House returns from its holiday break on Jan. 29, and it could be voted on as early as Jan. 30.

With the leaders of the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc QuΓ©bΓ©cois now all saying they are in favour of voting non-confidence in the Liberal government, it’s looking likely that the committee will successfully pass this motion. With four Tories, one Bloc member, and one NDP MP on the committee, they have the numbers to pass the motion.

While NDP MP Charlie Angus recently said he would break with his party and vote against a non-confidence motion, he is not a member of the public accounts committee.

Parliament Remains Backlogged

MPs’ work in the House of Commons was stalled in late 2024 by a Conservative filibuster over the government’s failure to produce documents related to a federal green technology foundation, and 2025 is poised to resume right where it left off.
In June, the House of Commons passed a motion ordering the government to provide all documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) to the RCMP for investigation. This came after a report by Auditor General Karen Hogan that found “significant lapses” in the now-suspended foundation’s governance, which included some 90 conflict-of-interest breaches and involved allegations that nearly $150 million in taxpayer dollars were improperly handed to private companies..
The Liberals have released some documents but are withholding other files. They say they are concerned about a potential violation of privacy rights under the Charter and that the request to release the documents to the RCMP could blur the lines between Parliament and the judiciary. The Tories, meanwhile, say the government is violating parliamentary privilege by failing to comply, and House Speaker Greg Fergus has said this argument has credence.
While the Liberals say the Conservatives should move the talks related to the SDTC to a committee, the Conservatives have promised work in the House will remain at a standstill until the government provides the green fund documents to the RCMP. With both sides refusing to budge, other work in the House of Commons is likely to remain gridlocked as Parliament resumes in 2025.

Several Bills Are in Jeopardy

Several pieces of legislation are working their way through the House of Commons and would be dismantled if the government were to fall. The most high-profile of these is the controversial Online Harms Act, Bill C-63, which targets issues like child pornography and would create a new hate crime offence punishable by life imprisonment.
Bill C-26, which deals with telecommunications security, had nearly become law when the Senate sent it back to the House with an amendment after completing third reading in early December. The bill aims to reinforce the security of Canada’s telecommunications network by providing government legal authority to prohibit providers, such as Chinese tech giant Huawei, from using high-risk products and services.
Another major bill that is now at risk is Bill C-27, which deals with the protection of personal information and the regulation of artificial intelligence.
Bill C-65, a bill to make several amendments to the Canada Elections Act, such as an additional two days of advance polling and measures to combat foreign interference, is also at risk of dying before the next election.
Two bills related to Canada’s First Nations would also perish if Parliament is dissolved or prorogued: Bill C-61, the First Nations Clean Water Act, and Bill C-53, which deals with the recognition of certain MΓ©tis governments in Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan.

May Be Prorogued Before Resuming

As 2024 draws to a close, a growing number of Liberal MPs have begun openly calling for Trudeau to resign, including members of the Quebec, Atlantic, and Ontario Liberal caucuses. Trudeau has said he would be mulling over his political future over the holiday break, but he has not said whether he will stay on as leader.

While Trudeau could concede to his critics and resign, giving the party a chance to organize an accelerated leadership race, he could also decide to stay on and prorogue Parliament. Prorogation would end the parliamentary session and result in all legislation and committee work being suspended.

While proroguing would not help improve Trudeau’s popularity, it would give his government time to regroup and launch a fresh agenda. Trudeau used this option back in 2020 at the time of the WE Charity controversy, and his predecessor Stephen Harper also did this in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2013.
In 2008, Harper successfully used prorogation to avoid a vote of confidence by the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc.

Trump’s Tariffs an Overarching Theme

Incoming U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat of 25 percent tariffs on imports of products from Canada will certainly be a key focus of Parliament once it returns. Economists have said tariffs of that magnitude would devastate Canada’s economy, which is already experiencing weak per-capita GDP growth and a cost-of-living crisis.

Trump has demanded that Canada and Mexico take steps to secure their borders and stop the flow of illegal drugs and migration over their respective borders with the United States, or he will levy tariffs against them. The federal government has already announced a $1.3 billion plan to boost security at the Canada–U.S. border, with the creation of a new North American task force targeting organized crime and synthetic drug trafficking, as well as new funding for helicopters and drones.

The U.S. president-elect so far has not said whether Canada’s announced actions are sufficient to stop the tariffs, or what exactly he wants to see Ottawa do.

With Trump’s inauguration set for Jan. 20, 2025, the Canadian government will have its attention turned south to see what the president does in his first few days in office. If the president-elect’s comments on Canada is merely a taste of what’s to come, MPs will have their hands full once Parliament returns on Jan. 29.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/5-things-to-watch-for-when-parliament-returns-in-2025-post-5784281?&utm_source=MB_article_paid&utm_campaign=MB_article_2025-01-01-ca&utm_medium=email&est=cPgRWVYlHyIXlvoytQvLaj55Y4MXwyFNT6tFKX3YNrdrBxTF8WYxcIvEzF5vPIOOxscj&utm_content=more-top-news-2

Thanks, Joe: Tren de Aragua Gang Members Wielding Blades, Tire Irons, Storming Border Crossings


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

The notorious Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, is aware that come January 20, the United States border enforcement policies are going to change. In response, that gang is trying to storm the border crossings to get as many members into the United States as possible before that date.

Knife-wielding Tren de Aragua gang members are mobbing border crossings at El Paso, Texas, in an attempt to break into the US — and have said they will attack border guards who try to stop them, according to a shocking Texas law enforcement memo leaked to The Post.

Last week, 20 of the Venezuelan gangbangers — armed with blades, tire irons and broken liquor bottles — tried to force their way into the US at a border gate, the missive from the Texas Department of Public Safety read.

This sounds awfully like an armed incursion by foreign invaders - irregulars but an invasion nonetheless. And the gangs and the cartels who are helping with illegal border crossings know that a new sheriff is taking over in a few days. 

The brutal prison gang is becoming increasingly more desperate to seed more members into the US before President-elect Donald Trump takes over, said Victor Avila, a retired agent for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

“You’re seeing that violence at the border because they know that it’s going to change in 27 days. It’s going to change. It’s going to be different, and they’re going to be sought after,” he told The Post.

Texas authorities were alerted to the gangbangers’ attempts to force their way into the US by an anonymous informant, who said the violent border break-ins by the gang “would continue every night” at around 3 a.m.

By "sought after," we can hope that reads as, "Tren de Aragua members will be hunted down like mad dogs and deported," because that would be the sane move, given this notorious prison gang's track record. But Mr. Avila, the retired HSI agent, has a more chilling warning for us:

The latest warning of the gang’s increased violence is linked an anti-American ideology that Avila compared to terrorist groups.

“I think that TdA is coming in with an instruction from their home country. And I think that their ideology is more of a terrorist ideology of destruction,” said Avila.

“They hate the United States just like terrorists do and they will kill, destroy, take over businesses, take over stores and take over apartment complexes, do whatever they have to do to destroy our way of life in the US,” he added.

If this is true, it puts a completely different angle on what is going on.

If Mr. Avila is correct, if the Venezuelan government is directing this, then that warrants a rather direct response to the Venezuelan regime -- and to President NicolΓ‘s Maduro. 

But first, the border has to be under control. At the moment, it's not. Illegal immigrants are still flooding into the United States, and Tren de Aragua gangsters are only part of the problem. In fiscal 2024 alone, almost three million illegal invaders crossed into the United States. As many as two million more may have entered undetected. While the bulk are from Latin America, there are also illegals crossing from the Middle East, North Africa, the Caribbean (most notably Haiti), and, alarmingly, China.

They enter the United States illegally. Even when apprehended, they are generally given a notice to appear and are released, after which they disappear. There are millions of people here illegally, and we have little to no idea where most of them are or what they are doing.

This mess was years in the making. It will likely take years to clean up. And it will yield bitter fruit before the job is done. And the blame can be - must be - laid at the feet of the Biden administration and its senseless, useless border policies.