Monday, February 23, 2026

When AI Defines Truth, Divisions Grow


People are understandably anxious about the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) systems.  There are serious moral, economic, and social issues that arise in a world where synthetic “brains” perform jobs and make decisions in place of humans.  As AI takes over social media platforms and other online repositories of human knowledge, it is unsettling to see algorithmic entities policing language and curating established “truths.”  The more widespread that AI becomes, the more dominant it will become in “defining” our world.  

There is a race underway to define what is “true.”  Certain members of society have long imposed unwritten rules of “political correctness” to manipulate the “acceptable” limits of public debate.  Certain governments are increasingly criminalizing thoughts and words as “disinformation” or “hate speech” to stifle free speech, silence dissent, and protect forms of institutional power.  As tech companies and government bureaucracies “teach” AI to enforce speech rules upon human populations, “politically correct” propaganda and censorship will spread exponentially.

We humans are not prepared for what is coming.  In increasingly fractured Western societies, the public cannot agree about anything.  We already read different websites and pay attention to different social media influencers.  As AI becomes more adept at influencing our opinions, we become more vulnerable to those who wish to distort or obscure the truth.

The novelist Ann Bauer wrote a thread on X the other day in which she shared parts of an online conversation she had with a “nice” Minnesota woman.  The woman had sent Bauer pictures of the makeshift Renee Good memorial in Minneapolis that included numerous images equating federal immigration enforcement to the Holocaust.  Incensed by the obscene comparison, Bauer responded by pointing out that Holocaust remembrance groups had strongly objected to the way Governor Tim Walz has been describing legitimate law enforcement actions as tantamount to the murder of six million Jews.  To the Minnesota woman’s credit, she acknowledged that she had no idea that Holocaust groups had condemned Walz for the comparison.  

Bauer replied by stating that, as much as she personally “deplored” the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, she blamed Governor Walz for creating a “dangerous, violent situation” meant “to run cover for the fraud investigations.”  To which the woman inquired, “What fraud investigations?”  After sending the woman articles concerning the multi-billion-dollar Somali fraud scandal in Minneapolis, the poor lady later exclaimed, “Oh my God.  Do we ever get the money back?”

Though exasperated, Bauer wants readers to know that “this is not a stupid woman,” but “she’s busy.”  “She relies on MN media for her news.”  Describing the plight of Minnesotans, generally, Bauer rues, “They have no freakin’ idea what’s going on.”  

I have seen this sharp information divide all over social media platforms.  Outside of Minnesota, a lot of Americans wish that President Trump had officially declared leftist anti-ICE agitators in Minneapolis to be engaged in insurrection against the federal government.  They wish the president had flooded Minnesota with troops in order to put an end to the political left’s armed rebellion against law enforcement agents.  This recurring phenomenon in which Democrat-aligned groups are permitted to riot in Democrat cities without suffering any criminal repercussions sustains the growing sense that two-tiered “justice” exists in America in which Democrat politicians, prosecutors, and judges aggressively harass political opponents while protecting political allies.  

Inside Minnesota, however, there is a widespread belief that confrontations against federal ICE agents in the state are indistinguishable from the civil rights protests of the ‘60s.  Businesses have signs on their front windows saying, “ICE Out!”  Church pastors implore congregants to shield immigrants from federal authorities.  There is endless online chatter about how the whole “mood” in and around Minneapolis is weighed down by dread and depression about the federal government’s law enforcement actions in the state.  Meanwhile, those locals seem completely oblivious to the reality that ICE agents are rounding up pedophiles and murderers living among them and rescuing trafficked children from dangerous homes.  The disconnect is staggering.

The Minnesota information divide — in which locals and outsiders see the ongoing riots against ICE agents so differently — is mostly a result of self-identification.  Democrat-leaning Minneapolis residents tend to trust what Democrat Governor Tim Walz and Democrat Mayor Jacob Frey say.  When Democrat leaders describe ICE agents as “Trump’s Gestapo,” Democrat voters nod their heads.  Those voters listen to leftist voices on local NPR radio, watch leftist commentators on MSNOW, and share information on social media groups that are hostile to non-leftists.  Self-selection prevents conflicting viewpoints from “contaminating” dominant leftist narratives.  Online leftist “safe spaces” such as Bluesky actively censor anything that challenges leftist orthodoxy.  

As divided as society already is today, imagine how much more divided it will become as AI takes over the role of “information curator” for large chunks of the population.  As algorithms become even more adept at filtering information and sequestering people according to their perceived political alignment, the remnants of society’s shared “public square” will largely disappear.  We will complete our transformation into plural societies living beside each other but separated by incompatible worldviews.  We will become incongruous tribes beholden to contradictory “facts.”  The more we abandon real human debate and rely upon artificial definitions of “truth,” the more likely that neighbors will become strangers.

This “brave new world” of ours is not for the faint of heart.  Democrats in the United States have already repeatedly tried to establish “governance boards” to police the Internet for so-called “disinformation” and “hate” speech.  On the other side of the Atlantic, the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act and the European Union’s Digital Services Act are structured to eliminate public dissent to official government policies.  Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron dismissed unregulated free speech as pure “bullshit.”  While Western governments become increasingly antagonistic toward citizens’ natural right to free expression, those governments describe the future of online communication as one in which AI will monitor everything and “objectively” police “false” or “hateful” information.  A vast technological infrastructure for dominating our minds is being built all around us, and an era of unmitigated government propaganda is about to take effect.  The Minnesota information divide will soon look small compared to the divisions yet to come.

Thirty years ago, the rise of the Internet appeared liberating.  People living under the yoke of dictatorships had access to information that could help set them free.  People with limited access to books could find a lifetime’s education right at their fingertips.  People who had been taught to hate each other could find common purpose online.  

Despite providing all of these great gifts, our online connections now isolate and divide us.  It is as if we rolled the Trojan horse inside our own homes until the day when AI could burst out and subdue us.  Instead of liberating our minds, we risk becoming prisoners under the watchful eyes of self-replicating digital wardens that intend to hide from us what we are “not allowed” to know.  In this new world where governments and synthetic entities work together to keep us under their control, thinking “outside the box” becomes more important than ever.  

Politicians already “divide and rule” over us.  AI systems will do the same.  Freethinkers capable of becoming real leaders will have to push back against both malevolent humans and malicious machines.


at

Nobody Trusts Elections -- That’s the Crisis


One of the most corrosive realities in contemporary American electoral politics isn't polarization, misinformation, or even foreign interference. It is something more basic: a majority of Americans no longer trust the integrity of their elections.

This is not a fringe belief limited to one party or ideology. According to polling from Rasmussen Reports, ahead of the 2024 presidential election, 62 percent of likely voters were “concerned that cheating will affect the outcome of the 2024 election.”

This skepticism crosses party lines and has persisted over the years. The pattern is clear: whichever party loses a presidential election claims the winning party cheated.

Democrats insisted George W. Bush stole the 2000 election. Many believed he did so again in 2004.

The idea that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to “steal” the 2016 election became a conviction on the political left, supported for years by media, weaponized intelligence community lies, and congressional investigations.

Republicans, especially President Donald Trump, believe the 2020 election was compromised through mail-in ballots, procedural changes enacted without legislatures, ballot harvesting, delayed counting, and statistical anomalies that were never convincingly explained. And now, after 2024, many Democrats again claim that Trump cheated to regain the presidency.

This recurring cycle reveals an important point: the issue is no longer who wins, but whether Americans trust the legitimacy of the system itself. It’s not about any specific election, but about the electoral process as a whole.

Whether Donald Trump “probably” won in 2020 is a separate debate, one with strong feelings on both sides. But that debate isn't the main point here. The real issue is that half the country sees every election loss as illegitimate, and nothing has been done to rebuild trust in the American election system.

Democracy cannot survive on blind faith alone. Trust must be earned through transparency, consistent rules, and procedures that make fraud difficult and detection easy.

Yet instead of reforming elections to restore public confidence, political leaders often respond to skepticism by dismissing it as dangerous, disloyal, or a “threat to democracy.”

That is backward. In a healthy republic, distrust in elections should lead to reform, not censorship, gaslighting, or moral condemnation.

Election procedures are important. Think about how American elections are now run. Voting can start weeks or even months before Election Day. Ballots are mailed en masse, harvested, cured, and counted long after polls close. 

In some jurisdictions, results may take days or weeks to be revealed.

Congressional races sometimes change multiple times as new batches of ballots are “discovered” or counted.

Contrast this with other developed democracies, where elections happen in a single day and results are known the same night or by the next morning. Or think about something closer to home: when Americans vote for a TV talent show winner, results are tabulated almost instantly. Yet, our republic needs weeks and teams of lawyers.

Yet we are told that selecting the leader of the free world must be a lengthy, secretive process that takes weeks of uncertainty. This unnecessarily delays or complicates the already massive transition. 

It also defies common sense, which is why both parties should support election integrity reforms, including the SAVE America Act currently before Congress. It has already passed in the House, and has reportedly crossed the 50-vote threshold for passage in the Senate.

At its core, the SAVE America Act affirms a principle that should be uncontroversial: only U.S. citizens should vote in U.S. elections, and states should take reasonable steps to verify eligibility. Secure elections are not voter suppression; they are the foundation of representative government.

Other reforms also merit bipartisan backing:

-       One-day voting with limited hardship exceptions

-       In-person voting as the standard method

-       Same-day counting so results are known promptly.

-       Uniform national standards instead of a patchwork of emergency rule changes

-       A national holiday on Election Day to allow working Americans to vote without barriers. Columbus Day or Juneteenth could be good sacrifices for a national Election Day.

The SAVE America Act enjoys widespread bipartisan support. Gallup and Pew Research Center found 83-84 percent backing for photo ID requirements, including virtually all Republicans and 67-71 percent of Democrats. 

Some countries go even further by requiring voting by law, as Australia does. While that might be a stretch for the United States, the core idea is solid: participation and legitimacy go hand in hand.

Delayed counting isn't just inconvenient; it's damaging. The longer results stay unknown, the more suspicion and distrust grow. When election outcomes change days after voting stops, trust erodes even among well-intentioned citizens.

Or when one candidate is ahead on election night, vote counting supposedly stops, then by morning, the other candidate has taken the lead. And this only happens in a few counties of key swing states.

Every unexplained pause, ballot dump, or last-minute reversal fuels conspiracy theories, regardless of validity. Transparency and speed are not luxuries; they are essential safeguards for trust and integrity.

If elections were settled conclusively on Election night, much of the post-election chaos that currently characterizes American politics would simply vanish.

Yet Democrats criticize voter ID requirements, often using racist and sexist tropes that suggest people of color are not smart enough to obtain a valid photo ID, or that recently divorced or married women cannot change their names and IDs. 

Former Vice President Kamala Harris believes “rural residents” are unable to make copies of their IDs because they “don’t have Kinkos or OfficeMax.” 

Funny how these groups have no trouble flying, checking into hotels, or buying a bottle of wine. To believe otherwise is condescension.

What about foreign interference?

You can’t credibly claim for a decade that elections are under attack from abroad and then object when intelligence agencies investigate.

Many Democrats are currently upset that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in her role, has taken an interest in election integrity and foreign interference.

That outrage is confusing because, for years, Democrats insisted that Russian interference compromised the legitimacy of the 2016 election. They correctly argued that foreign influence in elections is a national security threat, not just a political issue.

If that was true, it still holds now.

The DNI exists specifically to evaluate threats to national sovereignty, including election interference. Anyone genuinely worried about foreign meddling should welcome scrutiny from the DNI, not oppose it.

The United States is nearing a critical point. When large majorities of voters on both the left and right believe elections are rigged unless their side wins, the social contract starts to break down.

Election integrity should not be a partisan talking point. It should be a shared national priority.

The solution isn't to silence doubts or demonize skeptics. The answer is to improve the system so that losing an election doesn't feel like losing one’s voice or country.

Until then, every election will be challenged, not only in courts but also in people's minds. A republic that no longer earns the trust of its citizens is a republic in name only.



at

Podcast thread for Feb 23

 


Stay safe out there.

at

Echoes of Empire

Parallels between the fall of Rome and 

the looming collapse of the modern West.


Western Europe, traditionally viewing itself as the cultural and institutional heir to Greco-Roman antiquity, confronts anxieties reminiscent of the late Roman experience.

The Western Roman Empire did not collapse suddenly or for a single reason; rather, it disintegrated through the cumulative interaction of internal fragility and external pressures. In a comparable manner, contemporary Europe and its cultural extensions are facing demographic imbalance, institutional erosion, cultural exhaustion, and sustained migratory pressures. While historical analogy should be applied cautiously, the parallels between late antiquity and the present are striking enough to warrant closer scrutiny. 

Historians have debated Rome’s fall for centuries, attributing it variously to barbarian invasions, economic stagnation, overextension, corruption, climate fluctuation or epidemic disease. Modern scholarship prefers “multi-” to “unicausality.” Thus, Rome fell because its political, demographic, economic, and cultural systems insidiously eroded, decreasing resilience in the face of external shocks. In a civilizational perspective, the modern West appears vulnerable along four analogous dimensions: (a) large-scale migration, (b) demographic decline among native populations, (c) cultural decadence or exhaustion, and (d) the erosion of core institutions. If these trends continue unchecked, the foundational achievements of Western civilization—constitutional governance, individual liberty, and the rule of law—may suffer irreparable damage.

The Western Roman Empire saw a “civilian invasion” reflecting extensive population movements during the Migration Period (c. 300–600). Not so much as raiders as displaced populations seeking security, land, and opportunity, migrating tribes—Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, and Saxons—crossed the eastern border (Limes). Incursions by Huns and other nomadic groups further destabilized border regions. At the same time, the capacity of Roman legions to repel migrants decreased. The Rhine crossing of 406 symbolized the breakdown of Roman border control, culminating in the sack of Rome in 410 and the deposition of Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor, in 476.

Westward migrations were never inherently aggressive. In fact, barbarians admired Roman civilization, determined to enjoy the benefits of order and prosperity. However, Rome’s internal challenges—political instability, reliance on foederati, and erosion of military discipline—meant that integration increasingly failed. Autonomous power structures emerged by default, Roman law lost authority, and imperial cohesion dissolved. What proved fatal was not “diversity” as such, but state inability to assimilate newcomers into a shared civic and legal culture, defining and transmitting a unifying identity.

Contemporary Europe experiences demographic transformation through sustained mass immigration, particularly from regions whose indigenous populations—Christians and Jews—have been persecuted and oppressed by Muslims since the seventh century. As of the mid-2020s, the latter constituted approximately 6% of Europe’s population, with projections varying widely depending on migration and fertility trends. A reflection of deeply entrenched dogmatism in the diasporic ummah, security services have documented disproportionate involvement of immigrants in terrorist activity. These realities place strain on intelligence, policing, and social cohesion, analogous—though not identical—to the external pressures experienced by Rome when its borders gave way.

Demographic decline constituted a critical internal challenge in late Rome. From the late Republic onward, elite fertility rates fell sharply. Augustus attempted to reverse this trend through the Lex Iulia (18 BC) and Lex Papia Poppaea (9 AD), which incentivized marriage and childbirth. Despite these measures, economic burdens, urbanization, inheritance practices, and changing social norms limited success. Recurrent epidemics—most notably the Antonine Plague (165–180)—accelerated the population reduction, contributing to labor shortages and military vulnerability.

Contemporary Western societies face comparable demographic challenges. Fertility rates across Europe and North America remain well below replacement level. Scholars identify multiple causes: secularization, delayed family formation, economic insecurity, and the prioritization of individual autonomy over collective continuity. Immigrant populations normally exhibit higher fertility, gradually reshaping demographic profiles.

Douglas Murray’s argument in The Strange Death of Europe (2017) centers on this demographic asymmetry, a looming collapse that both presupposes and aggravates a loss of cultural self-confidence. Rather than holding immigration solely responsible for decline, he emphasizes what he sees as elite reluctance to articulate or defend Western cultural norms, compounded by historical guilt. While critics fault him for “selective evidence”, his central claim—that demographic decline among native populations weakens societal continuity—is broadly supported in demographic literature. Importantly, he refuses to assert demographic “replacement” as an inevitable biological process, identifying a political and cultural failure of integration and confidence.

Rome’s own demographic weakness forced reliance on barbarian recruits and settlers, altering the composition and loyalty of its institutions. Population reduction thus became not only a numerical problem but also a structural one, undermining resilience and continuity.

In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1788), Edward Gibbon famously attributed Rome’s fall in part to moral decline, though modern historians interpret “decadence” less as hedonism than as institutional complacency. Much as Roman elites indulged in luxury, the deeper issue lay in decreasing civic engagement, economic rigidity, and dependence on coercive bureaucracy. Citizens disengaged from public responsibility, content with state provision of entertainment and sustenance.

In the modern West, cultural decadence manifests less through excess than through relativism and institutional self-doubt. Universities, once guardians of intellectual tradition, prioritize ideological conformity over scholarly rigor. Critics argue that identity-based frameworks displace universalist inquiry, eroding shared academic foundations. Addressing overall trends, commentators such as Eric Zemmour contend that multiculturalism undermines social cohesion—a claim with historical precedent in Rome’s gradual cultural fragmentation.

A particularly vivid symptom of this cultural exhaustion is the widespread iconoclasm directed at symbols of Western heritage by younger generations. Following the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, activists—typically university students and indiscriminate hooligans, as ideologically uncompromising as historically ignorant—toppled or defaced statues of figures like Christopher Columbus in Boston and Minneapolis, Edward Colston (a slave trader) in Bristol, and even Founding Fathers such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, whose legacies include slavery despite their roles in establishing freedoms. In Portland, statues of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were pulled down amid accusations of racism towards Native Americans.

Similar actions targeted colonial-era monuments in Europe, including those of King Leopold II in Belgium. Proponents view these acts as “reckoning” with historical injustices, removing glorification of oppression from public spaces. Yet critics, including Murray, see them as manifestations of profound self-loathing: a rejection of the West’s complex inheritance, where imperfect figures advanced enlightenment values, rule of law, and the individual rights underpinning modern liberty.

This turning against one’s own civilizational symbols echoes Rome’s late-era apathy towards its proud traditions. By denying pride in ancestors who, flaws notwithstanding, forged a heritage of freedom and innovation, young Westerners risk forfeiting their birthright to a confident future. Masochistic gestures do not erase history but signal a tragic reluctance to defend or transmit it, leaving societies vulnerable to invasion—just as Rome’s loss of cultural assertiveness proved fatal amid external pressures.

Cultural exhaustion erodes the willingness to defend inherited norms. As Rome’s citizens increasingly avoided military service, contemporary Western societies exhibit decreasing civic participation and trust. This erosion does not destroy societies immediately, but renders them vulnerable to disciplined ideological movements, whether Islamist or Marxist.

Institutional decline ultimately sealed Rome’s fate. The third-century crisis exposed systemic fragility: rapid imperial turnover, fiscal collapse, and military mutiny. Diocletian’s reforms delayed collapse but entrenched bureaucracy and authoritarianism. The permanent division of the empire in 395 weakened the West irreversibly. By the fifth century, taxation crushed agricultural productivity, trade plummeted, and law receded.

Parallels in the modern West include decreasing trust in democratic institutions, polarization, and executive overreach. Secularization has left a moral vacuum, with Christianity’s social influence waning sharply across Europe. While profane governance is not invariably destabilizing, the loss of shared metaphysical assumptions complicates social cohesion. In America Alone (2006), Mark Steyn’s warnings of civilizational decline—predictably criticized for “alarmism”—underscore the risks of institutional fragmentation and cultural disunity.

The fall of Rome inaugurated centuries of economic regression and cultural contraction in Western Europe. While history never repeats mechanically, it may rhyme. The modern West is caught in an identity crisis. Renewal remains possible, as demonstrated by Byzantium’s example, but only through deliberate reaffirmation of demographic vitality, institutional integrity, cultural confidence, and moral purpose. Rome’s lesson is not that decline is inevitable, but that neglect ensures it.


at

When the Law Is Optional, You Have Tyranny


How do you have a democracy if you don’t have laws? And how do you have laws if you don’t enforce them? Laws are gifts; we reject law at our peril. One of the most troubling aspects of recent American political discourse is the absolute willingness to simply ignore laws, which is kind of a problem. You see, the basis of democracy is we the people, through our legislature and the guy we elect president, make laws. So democracy is, at its most basic level, the ability to make laws. But if you make a law, and then you don’t enforce it because you choose not to, or you use obnoxious methods like deceit and corrupt judges to prevent its enforcement, then you don’t really have laws. And if you don’t have laws, you don’t have a democracy.

But now, the things we decree through the democratic process have become lawless. The left has absolutely no hesitation in simply ignoring what the people want. Oh, they’ll argue that they’re doing what the people want, but in a democracy, the people manifest what they want through the passage of laws through the Democratic process. What we have today is the neutering of laws through the process of a bunch of leftists getting together and deciding what they want and trying to jam it down our collective throat.

It’s easy to understand the temptation for lawlessness. The best way to deal with an obstacle is to ignore it where possible, and it’s entirely possible when you have a regime media, court system, and an absolutely anti-democratic Democrat Party all angry because they can’t get what they want because the majority of Americans don’t want the same kind of deviant communist race garbage that the left prefers. So, ignoring the law, therefore ignoring democracy, is imperative. They imagine we must to save democracy by burning it down; all that they will do is end up with ashes.

Now, after spending 30 years as a lawyer, I’m under no illusion that the law or the justice system is perfect. But I’m also under no illusion that if you don’t have a law or justice system, you have a dictatorship. There are various kinds of dictatorships. You can have some ridiculous clown doing the Mussolini thing in front of a bunch of slack-jawed thugs. But you can also have a technocratic dictatorship where a bunch of people collectively take power and dictate to everyone else. That’s what we’ve got here with the kind of globalist nanny state goofs that we see demanding to run our country like some frigid wine-woman teacher runs her kindergarten. But make no mistake. While the Mussolini type will default to taking you out and shooting you quickly, the nannies will start with hectoring, badgering, and pestering you, but if that doesn’t work, eventually, they’ll also be happy to murder you. And they’ll blame you for making them do it because you asked for it, you racist, sexist, transphobic, Islamophobic, fatist, cis, Christian, Republican, gun-owner of pallor who refuses to submit to your betters.

We got examples all over the place. Let’s start with immigration. Remember how we had all those immigration laws? It says if you’re some sort of Third World peasant, you can’t just wander here at your leisure and also decide that you’re going to get a bunch of welfare so that, in fact, we are paying for our own replacement by a class of future Democrat serfs. Well, the Constitution is pretty clear that the job of the President is to enforce the law, and the law is pretty clear that you can’t be here as an illegal alien, but the Democrats had this amazing idea. How about they just not enforce the law? How about they just not do it? How about instead of going through the trouble of making the arguments and convincing people and then going through the process that we all learned about watching Schoolhouse Rock on Saturday mornings back in the 1970s between the Banana Splits and Fat Albert, they just don’t do it? How is that functionally different from a dictatorship? No, they did not declare a new law. They just decided not to enforce the one that exists, the one that passed Congress and was signed by the President. It’s repeal by decree. Again, how do you have a democracy if you’re not enforcing the laws that democratic institutions passed?

Well, you weren’t doing democracy, but that’s the point. They don’t want to do democracy. They want to be in charge, and democracy is an obstacle. And yes, I know that this is a constitutional republic, but lighten up and just don’t take us off on some stupid tangent.

Just the other day when that ridiculous little Temu Pete Buttigieg, the fake Christian heretic weirdo who’s running for the Texas Senate, who happens to be as whiter than Mitt Romney after six months in a cave, conspired with Stephen Colbert to bring some attention to himself so he could beat powerful, strong, black woman of blackness and strong powerfulness Jasmine Crockett in the current Democrat primary. There’s been an equal time law for broadcast television for almost a century. It is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 315 and mandates, in general terms, that during the period leading up to a primary or general election, if you put one candidate on TV outside of a newscast, you must put the other candidate(s) on, too. Now, I think that in 2026, this is a bad law, though I understand that when it was enacted, the broadcast spectrum was limited and you didn’t have other routes to reach voters, a TV station owner could sway the election by giving one candidate exposure while excluding the others. That’s not the case now, especially with the interwebs, and maybe this law should go away. But the law hasn’t gone away. It’s a law passed by our Congress, and that has not been thrown out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional or repealed by the legislative process, so it must be enforced. Naturally, James Talarico, who’s about as honest as a used Yugo salesman who used to work for Enron, got out there and started claiming that the FCC was persecuting him, he was lying. It was CBS that refused to break the law. And the answer from the Democrats? Blame the Trump administration for potentially enforcing it.

So, Democrats can not only ignore duly enacted laws, but it is the latest Worst Thing Ever when Trump potentially enforces a duly enacted law. So, basically, laws exist only when Democrats choose to approve. 

That’s tyranny, and it is exquisitely dangerous. The law is the foundation of a free society, but today far too many of our peers would undermine the gift that is the law because it is inconvenient, because it frustrates their temporary and transitory desires. At one time, we understood that as men of the West, as civilized people. There are two great dissertations on the importance of the law that instantly come to mind from within the Western canon – them being located there, we can understand why leftists have no conception of them. The Bible is clear that the law provides the basis of justice. “And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.” (Deuteronomy 6:25). Freedom comes from the law: “I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts” (Psalm 119:45). Jesus declares, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). Naturally, the bible warns that judges must “not pervert justice” or show partiality (Deuteronomy 16:19; Leviticus 19:15). Hint, hint.

The other great exposition of the importance of law is from A Man For All Seasons, where Sir Thomas More gives his famous speech about how adherence to the law is vital for a just society. Sir Thomas  would give the devil himself the benefit of law for his own safety’s sake.

The routine disregard of the law for short-term advantage will have long-term, disastrous consequences. Maybe the ones advocating we disregard the law don’t see it. Maybe they don’t care. But if they succeed, they will certainly care when the law is not there to protect them from the anarchy and the tyranny of raw power – power these fools do not themselves have – that must inevitably follow the death of the law, for we will not submit to the tyranny of the lawless.


at

🎭 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. 


at

The Party of Hate Is Unleashing Political Violence


Early Sunday morning, Austin Tucker Martin illegally entered the north gate of Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump’s home in Palm Beach, Florida. He was carrying a shotgun and a can of gasoline.

After he broke through the residence’s security perimeter, law enforcement officials ordered Martin to drop the items. While he dropped the fuel can, Martin “raised the shotgun to a shooting position.” Thereupon, he was shot dead by law enforcement officials.

While Martin’s motivation for the attack is unknown, he traveled a great distance to bring dangerous items to the residence of President Trump, so he was certainly not making a social visit. On Saturday, his Cameron, North Carolina, family had reported him missing.

Fortunately, the President and First Lady were in Washington, D.C. at the time of the incident, and no law enforcement officials were injured.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt praised the Secret Service for acting “quickly and decisively to neutralize a crazy person, armed with a gun and a gas canister, who intruded President Trump’s home.”

This latest incident follows two attempts to assassinate President Trump in 2024. On the Fox News show, Sunday Morning Futures, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent placed the blame squarely on the Democratic Party. He said, “Two would-be assassins (died), one in jail for life, and this venom coming from the other side.” According to Bessent, Democrats are “normalizing this violence. It’s got to stop.”

The break-in at Mar-a-Lago comes just a few days after an Illinois Senate candidate, Lt. Governor Juliana Stratton, started airing television commercials featuring people yelling “F---Trump, Vote Juliana.” Stratton believes it is a good strategy to broadcast “profane” commercials with disrespectful language directed at Trump.

In the wake of another potential Trump assassination attempt, Bessent demanded that Stratton’s commercials be removed from the airwaves. Incredibly, a media guest on Sunday’s Inside Politics program on CNN laughed at Stratton’s commercial and said it was effective, highlighting the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” that has infected both the mainstream media and the Democratic Party.

For example, in January, a Democrat running for Attorney General of Ohio, Elliot Forhan, posted a video on social media bragging that he was “going to kill Donald Trump.” Forhan ludicrously claimed he was going to execute the President after a trial using “capital punishment.”

Instead of being elected by the voters of Ohio, Forhan should be arrested. Unfortunately, he is following in the footsteps of Democrat Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones, who was elected by voters after texts advocating political violence were revealed.

Jones sent texts to a Republican Delegate calling for the Virginia Speaker of the House of Delegates to be murdered and his children to be shot and “die in their mother’s arms.”

Several weeks ago, a Jackson County, West Virginia librarian, Morgan Morrow, was arrested and charged with “terroristic threats” for allegedly seeking to recruit individuals “to pursue and assassinate” President Trump.

Two weeks ago, a Georgia man, Jauan Rashun Porter, was sentenced to over three years in prison for threatening the life of President Trump. In a July 26, 2025, TikTok livestream broadcast, Porter vowed that “there’s only one way to make America great and that is putting a bullet in between Trump’s eyes.”

Regularly, Democrats display a disgusting attitude toward Trump. While he usually stays at Mar-a-Lago on weekends, on Saturday night, Trump was hosting the Governors’ Dinner at the White House. Not surprisingly, Democratic Governors boycotted the event.

On Tuesday night, President Trump will deliver the State of the Union address to the nation. However, at least 20 Democratic members will be boycotting the event and attending “The People’s State of the Union” rally on the National Mall that will be sponsored by far-left organizations such as MoveOn.

The boycott was criticized by Democrat sports commentator Stephen A. Smith, who has been mentioned as a potential presidential candidate. He asked, “Why do they…get away with that? Why do they get to circumvent those rules and regulations? Why do they get to circumvent the need and the insistence of mere decorum? This is the kind of stuff that ticks me off.”

He is right, but too many Democrats are acting this way to placate their far-left base, which is driving their party. The party’s enthusiasm is being generated by the Left-Wing activists who are protesting Trump and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Thus, a growing number of Democratic Party leaders, instead of showing statesmanship and maturity, display solidarity with the Left-Wing radicals, who often choose violence instead of civility.

Along with the Trump assassination attempts in 2024, last September, the nation’s foremost young conservative leader, Charlie Kirk, was murdered at Utah Valley University in front of a crowd of over 3,000 students. The person arrested was reportedly motivated by left-Wing ideology and was radicalized online.

The disturbing record shows that Democratic Party leaders are inciting violence by using language that triggers unhinged radicals. For instance, the newly elected Mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, has repeatedly called President Trump a “fascist.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore likened the Trump administration to the Nazis and Hillary Clinton compared the President to Adolph Hitler.

In fact, almost every day, a Democrat refers to Trump as “Hitler” or a “Nazi.” Of course, Democrats know these charges are baseless lies, but they serve to provoke the party’s radical followers, who frequently commit acts of violence.

The “Trump is a Nazi” lie has a long history in the Democratic Party. In 2017, the President condemned white supremacists and Nazis who participated in the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, VA. However, he remarked that there were “very fine people on both sides,” referring to leftist counter-protesters and monument preservationists who were protesting the removal of Confederate statues.

This lie about Trump has been repeated endlessly and is still being used to incite disturbed leftists today. The President’s life is in constant jeopardy because Democrats will not act responsibly and tell the truth. 


at

Arizona Advances Bill to Rename a Highway After Charlie Kirk. Will the State's Democrat Governor Sign It?

Arizona Advances Bill to Rename a Highway After Charlie Kirk. Will the State's Democrat Governor Sign It?


Lawmakers in the Arizona legislature have advanced a bill that would rename Phoenix’s Loop 202 in honor of the conservative leader Charlie Kirk.

The legislation will designate the freeway as the “Charlie Kirk Loop 202” and will encompass the entirety of the 78-mile roadway. The bill has passed in the Arizona Senate along party lines, and will now move to the House for further approval, where Republicans have a majority. Once again, the vote is expected to land along party lines. Another bill to create a Turning Point license plate is moving alongside the highway renaming.

Democrats have seemingly claimed that their reasoning behind not voting for the bill is due to a Republican state senator who quietly exited the floor during a moment of silence for Jesse Jackson. The question looms as to whether or not Gov. Katie Hobbs will sign either of the bills. When reached out to by local outlets, her office has declined to comment on the matter.

Should we expect that she vetoes at least one of the bills? The fact that she declined to even comment isn’t a good sign. Every Democrat standing in opposition of the bill certainly isn’t either. Hobbs didn't even attend the memorial of Kirk, claiming that she wasn't invited despite it being well publicized that the event was public.

One indication that she may be willing to play ball is her public rebuke of Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, who made comments where she seemingly pondered how leftist radicals could justifiably kill masked federal agents.

Should Hobbs exercise her veto, Turning Point Action would certainly up their ground game to the point of running her out of office. The public pressure on Hobbs is, and should be, immense. If Democrats can’t allow a highway to be renamed after a beloved public figure who had his life stolen by an assassin’s bullet just because he was allied with President Trump, what would they do if they returned to the White House?


at

A Tale of Two Athletes


Arthur Liu was born in Sichuan, China and raised in a small mountain village. In 1989, he participated in the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protest, telling Town & Country, "I organized protests and hunger strikes for democracy in China."

As a result of that participation, Arthur was forced to emigrate to the United States. In 2022, the Justice Department revealed the Chinese government was attempting to intimidate critics of the regime living in the U.S., including Arthur, who said at the time, "They are still paying attention to me after 30-some years, since I organized protests and hunger strikes for democracy in China,” he said.

In 2005, Arthur and his wife Yan "Mary" Qingxin, welcomed their daughter Alysa, the oldest of five children, all of whom were born through a surrogate. From and early age, Alysa showed a talent for figure skating, and she was inspired by Michelle Kwan. The same year that the Justice Department announced the Chinese government was intimidating her father, they tried to recruit Liu to skate for the communist nation in the 2022 Beijing Games.

Liu refused and has represented America both at Beijing and in Italy. Yesterday, she won the gold. 


She was the first woman to do so since 2002. And it was a remarkable career comeback. Liu retired at 16, saying she was burned out by the sport. She had spent years training for the Olympics and ended up finishing in sixth place. She was told where to go, what to eat, when to train. For a while, she wouldn’t even go near a rink. In 2024, a ski trip made her rethink skating and she got back on the ice. 


Her joy was palpable. 


Compare that to Eileen Gu, who was born in San Francisco. Gu took China up on its offer to compete for them in the games. She won gold in 2022 but failed to do so again this year, settling for silver in the women's freeski big air competition.

Gu said she's a "punching bag" amid the ongoing backlash she's received for competing on behalf of China. 


She's not a "punching bag." She made a choice to compete for China and we're free to criticize her. 


As the Olympic Games come to a close, however, the contrast could not be clearer:

One athlete born in America chose the regime that countless others risked and lost their lives to in an effort to bring democracy to the communist nation. Another athlete, whose father risked everything for freedom, refused to skate for the government that once persecuted him. And it’s about a woman who found herself after walking away from the sport for her own personal peace.

Alysa Liu’s gold medal is not just a victory in the skating rink. It is a quiet rebuke to the idea that loyalty can be bought and that freedom is merely branding.

For the Liu family, America wasn’t a marketing opportunity. It was a refuge. And this week, it was the flag raised above the podium, and a gold medal around her neck. And in a world of Eileen Gus, be an Alysa Liu.


at