Reader’s Links for March 26th, 2024

Posted on by

Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.

This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.

So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.

This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.

For those interested, please check out https://vladtepesblog.substack.com/ as an another avenue of expression.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

20 Replies to “Reader’s Links for March 26th, 2024”

  2. Analysis on the bridge collapse. The ship dropped one anchor it seems which means it was likely accidental:

    • It probably is an accident, the ship is seen to swing from the current causing it to strike the bridge.

      The low information people will see a big conspiracy but the most likely explanation is an accident, it takes a long distance to stop or turn ships and the swing seen in the videos had to have been the river current.

      Yes this is going to hurt the East Coast with the shipment of gas and other volatiles having to take the long route, it will add a lot of money to the shipping costs which will have to be added to the price the customers pay.

    • On the positive side, this is an opportunity to show unity, innovation, and can-do when rebuilding.

      Learn from Israel’s example. A country that appears divided attracts attack.

  3. Recalled San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin Tells Audience Victims Don’t Have Rights Under Constitution (Video)
    by Margaret Flavin Mar. 26, 2024 9:30 am

    In 2022, Chesa Boudin, the radical far-left DA of San Francisco, was successfully voted out of office by recall.

    Boudin was brought up by terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn after his parents were sent to prison for terrorism.

    He has the distinction of being too far left on crime for the people of one of the most liberal cities in the country.

    After his ouster, he was hired by the law school at UC-Berkeley.

    During a conference held at Berkeley Law, Boudin said crime victims don’t have rights under the Constitution.

    Boudin led a discussion on criminal justice issues at “Justice Unveiled: Debating Crime and Public Safety Conference.”

    Former prosecutor Cully Stimson raised the issue of the “progressive prosecutor” movement, saying, “There’s nothing progressive about the progressive prosecutor movement, at least as you define the word ‘progressive.’”

    Stimson suggested the movement is dangerous because it focuses entirely on criminal defendants and does nothing to cultivate public safety or protect victims.

    Stimson pressed the district attorneys on the panel about their philosophy, saying, “An offender-oriented approach to prosecution rests on the unstated and therefore unsubstantiated assumption that the perpetrators of crime stand on the same moral plane as their victims.”

    Stimson then explained that protecting the vast majority of the community, who don’t commit crimes, is a cornerstone of the social contract.

    He asked, “How do you, in your role as the [district attorney], uphold your end of the social contract?”

    “That’s a decision we make that separates us from every other civilized country in the world,” Boudin said. “It’s a policy choice, and it really doesn’t have to do with safety so much as a desire for vengeance and retribution with the history of racism in this country.”

    Although he suggested the progressive prosecutor movement isn’t about putting defendants over victims, he said the Constitution created rights for criminal defendants, but it “does not create rights for victims of crime.”

    Further, he stated that prosecutors are not asked to represent victims of crime, but “all of the people of our jurisdictions,” and focusing on victims “disregards” the Constitution.

    Watch:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/recalled-san-francisco-district-attorney-chesa-boudin-tells/

  4. Post
    See new posts
    Conversation
    Brick Suit
    @Brick_Suit
    Ship appears to have lost power twice before impact with the bridge.
    In this sped up clip, note that the ship’s lights are on at first, then turn off. After the lights return, the ship appears to lose power one more time before the power returns again, but by then it’s too late.

    https://twitter.com/Brick_Suit/status/1772550706584596751

  6. NYC Council asking state’s highest court to let non-citizens vote in local elections after law struck down
    Louis Casiano
    Mon, March 25, 2024 at 5:11 PM CDT·3 min read
    122

    The New York City Council is asking the state’s highest court to reverse rulings that struck down a law that would let non-citizens vote in local elections.

    An appeals court in February ruled the election law, passed by the council in 2021, unconstitutional. The law would have let upwards of 800,000 green card holders vote in local elections.

    “The Council passed Local Law 11 of 2022 to enfranchise 800,000 New Yorkers who live in our city, pay taxes, and contribute to our communities,” council spokesperson, Rendy Desamours, said in a statement. “Today’s filing to appeal the Second Department’s recent decision seeks a determination from the state’s highest court that the law is consistent with the State Constitution, Election Law, and the Municipal Home Rule Law.”

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/nyc-council-asking-states-highest-221121732.html

  8. Columnist Falls Into Trap Over Judge’s Ruling on Illegal Immigrant Gun Possession Case
    By Cam Edwards | 11:31 AM | March 26, 2024
    Image by MikeGunner from Pixabay

    U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman’s ruling that an illegal immigrant’s Second Amendment rights were violated when he was charged with possessing a gun in violation of federal law has divided the 2A community and even led a group of Illinois Republicans to introduce a gun control bill in the state legislature.
    Advertisement

    As columnist Randy Gibson writes, the ruling has left both sides in the gun control debate stymied and perplexed, though I’ve noticed that most of the gun control groups have decided to simply ignore what Coleman had to say. Conservatives like Gibson, on the other hand, are much more interested in discussing the implications of the case, and I think his attitude is shared by a lot of folks on the right.

    Moderate conservatives like me believe in upholding the Second Amendment and protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms, but the issue of extending these rights to individuals who have entered the country illegally presents a complex challenge.

    It is essential to recognize that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, intended to protect the individual’s right to self-defense and ensure the security of a free state. While this right should be safeguarded, it is crucial to consider the implications of extending this protection to individuals who are in the country unlawfully. They are already breaking laws by being here illegally, and it’s the law-abiding citizens who have the rights under the Constitution.

    I don’t know if Gibson realizes this, but he’s now adopted the very position of Joe Biden’s Justice Department; only “law-abiding citizens” possess the right to keep and bear arms. On the surface, that might sound unobjectionable. But what constitutes law breaking? If you run a stop sign, you’re technically breaking the law. If you use medical marijuana in Oklahoma, where Gibson lives, you’re breaking federal law.
    Advertisement

    A few years ago Harvard professor Harvey Silverglate wrote a book called “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent” that discussed in detail the thousands of federal laws that are on the books, and how impossible it is for many folks to know whether or not they’re actually committing a crime over the course of their daily routine. I’d be very cautious asserting that only “law-abiding citizens” get to exercise any of the rights enshrined in the Constitution, including our right to keep and bear arms.

    I’ll assume for the sake of argument that Gibson doesn’t think a speeding ticket or a fine for littering should lead to the lifetime loss of our Second Amendment rights, but where does he draw the line? Felonies? Violent felonies? Any crime punishable by a year or more in prison? Any crime punishable by deportation? Should rights be limited to citizens only, regardless of their lawful or lawless status?

    Gibson’s column is titled “2nd Amendment Ruling a Chess Game”. That may be right, and Coleman could very well have crafted her opinion with an eye towards riling up conservatives, but if that’s the case then Gibson himself has fallen into her trap; aligning himself with Merrick Garland and those DOJ attorneys who are asserting in courts around the country that guys like Bryan Range (who received a probationary sentence for lying about his income on a food stamp application decades ago) and Darnell Daniels (who was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison after he admitted to regularly using marijuana as a gun owner) don’t have any right to keep and bear arms because they’re not “law-abiding citizens”.

    The better argument to make is that illegal immigrants are not a part of the “political community”, and therefore are not part of “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As Second Amendment attorney Kostas Moros recently argued:

    As the Supreme Court explained in D.C. v. Heller, “the People” is a term that “unambiguously refers to all members of the political community.” It “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

    Someone who just entered the United States illegally has not developed any sufficient connection with the country.

    Now, it certainly can be more complicated than that; what about someone here for a decade or more? Perhaps he has started a family, is gainfully employed, and even pays taxes. Or what of DACA recipients, who have attained a sort of quasi-legal status? It’s hard to argue that such people are unambiguously not members of the political community. The question of whether illegal immigrants are thus part of “the People” would seem to sometimes be a heavily fact-based determination. Perhaps the best way to test it is that someone who is unlawfully present is presumed to not be a member of the political community, but may rebut that presumption through their particular circumstances.

    There are well-reasoned arguments rebutting that position, but for those who want to find fault with Coleman’s ruling I’d say that Moros’s take is the most solid ground for them to stake their claim. It’s certainly a far better approach than blithely asserting that only “law-abiding citizens” can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Adopting that position could have some severe consequences for tens of millions of responsible gun owners… and could very well lead to the gun control lobby declaring “checkmate” when broad swathes of the public are prohibited from possessing a firearm thanks to a routine traffic stop or minor brush with the law.

    https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/03/26/judges-ruling-on-illegal-immigrants-gun-possession-case-n1224324#google_vignette

  9. Joe Biden’s America: Illegal Alien Murders Grand Rapids Woman, Dumps Her Body on Side of Road
    by Cristina Laila Mar. 26, 2024 11:40 am400 Comments

    Joe Biden’s America.

    An illegal alien from Mexico fatally shot a Grand Rapids, Michigan woman on Friday and dumped her body on the side of the road.

    Brandon Ortiz-Vite was charged with fatally shooting 25-year-old Ruby Garcia and leaving her body on the side of the road.

    According to The Midwesterner: “Ortiz-Vite faces one count each of homicide/open murder, carjacking, felony firearm, illegally carrying a concealed weapon, operating while intoxicated, and driving on a suspended or revoked license, records show.”

    Garcia’s family did not disclose the relationship between Ortiz-Vite and Ruby Garcia.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/joe-bidens-america-illegal-alien-murders-grand-rapids/

  10. Donald Trump Is Right: The Trump Brand Is Actually Undervalued By Billions Of Dollars
    by Paul Ingrassia Mar. 26, 2024 3:20 pm16 Comments

    In recent weeks, the news cycle has been flush with stories about how Donald Trump allegedly “overvalued” his real estate assets to the tune of hundreds of millions more than their actual worth to fraudulently secure loans from major financial institutions like Deutsche Bank. This, even though Donald Trump and The Trump Organization secured those loans, without controversy, and had a lucrative partnership with the various lenders implicated in the lawsuit – where both parties made a fortune over decades, and where not a single party lost money or suffered any damages as a result of the relationship. In short, there was no fraud.

    The fraud is found in the courtrooms – and it is a fraud on the American public, as well as the rule of law – not just in New York, where the dangerous precedent is being set by radical and illegitimate operatives like Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron – but throughout the country writ large, now that New York’s justice system has effectively greenlit political prosecutions with impunity.

    The devastating ramifications of the case go beyond the “mere political” – America’s free enterprise system now hangs in the balance, with the prospect that any borrower or entrepreneur who seeks a loan but who may have at one point voiced dissident views or held a position deemed nebulously “problematic” by a petulant Attorney General like Letitia James, could now be held liable for fraud – and be on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars, simply for establishing a productive business.

    The people who increasingly hold the levers of power, like James and Engoron – and by extension, Joe Biden and Merrick Garland – are those who hold radical views that, brought to their logical conclusions, would make free enterprise impossible and communism inevitable. They evidently do not believe in private property rights and are outwardly antagonistic of those who have the creative visions to see beyond the increasingly limited horizons of the American mind, and dare tread new ground – or traverse unexplored territory that the majority of people would never even dream to do – because it is beyond their narrow reach.

    But simply because our leaders are increasingly limited in their worldviews does not mean those with broader visions, like Donald Trump, equipped with the gung-ho to execute their visions, should be actively penalized for carrying out their projects. That is why the news of last week’s merger of Trump Media and special purpose acquisition company Digital World Acquisition Corporation (or “DWAC”) – resulting in Tuesday’s listing of the ticker symbol DJT on the Nasdaq, the first time one of Donald Trump’s companies has gone public in three decades – which yielded a reported $3 billion-plus windfall for the presidential frontrunner, was most welcome.

    That news, coupled with the appellate court’s decision on Monday to slash the price tag on the bond President Trump owed to New York State (for a supposed fraud in which, again, there were no victims), from nearly half a billion dollars to a more modest $175 million, suggests that no matter how otherwise communistic our institutions may become, fortune, nature, (and God) invariably favors bold, original thinkers – especially in our age that suffers a pandemic of unoriginality and laziness.

    Which goes to a broader point about appraising value. Obviously, with the public listing of President Trump’s media company, his net worth is higher than ever before, placing him on Bloomberg’s list of the world’s top 500 billionaires, for the first time – reportedly – ever (although President Trump has been outspoken about how Forbes and Bloomberg have long undervalued their appraisals of his real estate empire – thus wrongly denying him placement on previous lists).

    Many public commentators were quick to take jabs at Donald Trump and Truth Social, as soon as the public listing ballooned on the stock exchange, dismissing the amplified market capitalization as a “meme stock,” that grossly distorted its “fundamental value.” The assumption on which those hostile evaluations were based was that the purported “true value” of Truth Social was much lower, and that it is only being artificially heightened by President Trump’s own brand – as both successful politician and businessman – riding off the momentum of his formidable poll numbers this election cycle.

    While it is true that President Trump’s political brand is only indirectly bearing on his personal businesses, which are valued by their own independent set of metrics – including revenues, userbase, and quality of product – the idea that Trump’s brand should have no bearing on the price of the public listing is preposterous.

    The Trump Brand is one of if not the world’s most recognizable brands. Whether pertaining to real estate, or politics, or media and entertainment, the Trump namesake is ubiquitous the world over, and is demarcated for its luxury and quality of content, which has been a constant part of the brand for decades.

    Trump’s brand, in a way, is akin to Elon Musk’s brand – the products are no doubt world renowned, and supersede the competition on the basis of their quality alone. However, one would be remiss to say that Elon’s own brand as a charismatic entrepreneur is not a factor, if not the primary factor, in driving the value of Tesla, X, and his other companies.

    In short, the quality of the man at the top calling the shots will reflect fundamentally on the market value of the brand itself. Donald Trump has arguably done more than Elon Musk – his brands are arguably more well-known across the world, and his success in both business and politics is without rival in the business or political worlds, full stop.

    Accordingly, Donald Trump offers something that no other individual on earth can bring – in this regard, his reported $3 billion windfall, and the prospects of his newly public company only going up higher, is indicative not of an overinflated asset divorced from reality. But rather, a set of objective facts that have true bearing on its fundamental value.

    If anything, the Trump brand should be worth tens of billions of dollars more than what it is currently being traded at on the Nasdaq, given its uniqueness as combining the best of politics and business. As a business, The Trump Organization is diversified in a way that few, if any, other billion-dollar companies now match: its properties are among the best in the world, and now, with the addition of the media company, it has added that greatest driver of the American economy of the past three decades into its arsenal: technology startups.

    In short, to borrow a favorite Silicon Valley phrase, the Trump brand incorporates both the world of bits and the world of atoms – no easy feat by any stretch of the imagination. This especially true for an age where quality brick-and-mortar developments are increasingly hard to come by: the casualty of globalization, outsourcing, mass migration, and DEI.

    Donald Trump is a concrete thinker; he always has been. This concreteness is even the defining feature of his politics, which are practical and, as he puts it, steeped in “common sense.” But being a concrete thinker is not a slight on one’s ability to be an original thinker or visionary – quite the contrary: it is proof positive of one’s proficiency to discern value in the world, and capitalize on it, in ways that few others can replicate.

    In the same vein in which DaVinci’s paintings and Michelangelo’s sculptures would be valued in the billions if ever sold on the open market today, Donald Trump’s creative visions equate to exceptional valuations – because of the rarity of his skillset and gifts. That is why everything he touches literally turns to gold – he is a rarefied example of originality in an irremediably confused age, an age that routinely attempts to swindle the population to convince them everything history considered bad is now good, and good, bad.

    But those mainstays which made America, and the West, great in the past – beauty, visionaries, hard work – and which sprang out of those classical virtues that brought forth some of the greatest civilizations the world has ever known – from ancient Greece, to Rome, to Florence during the Renaissance, to America – remain as true as ever.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/donald-trump-is-right-trump-brand-is-actually/

  11. Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/03/rfk-jr-answers-on-guns-miss-key-points-and-leave-door-open-for-more-infringements/#ixzz8VcGdJ0kL
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
    Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

    RFK Jr Answers on Guns Miss Key Points & Leave Door Open for More Infringements
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on March 26, 2024 by David Codrea
    How are gun owners who won’t surrender their rights supposed to “unite” with gun prohibitionists who demand that they do? (Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Facebook)

    “What will you do to confine semi-automatic weapons to use only by military and law enforcement?” a woman asked independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at a New Hampshire townhall meeting (see video below). Her biased presumption was that such a ban would be desirable, beneficial, and constitutional, no doubt the result of relying on Democrats and the media (same thing) for what she “knows” about the issue.

    “I am not going to take people’s guns away,” Kennedy responded. “You know, anybody who tells you that we can end the violence to our children that’s going on now by removing people’s guns is not being truthful with you.”

    He’s spent time in rural communities, Kennedy explained. He’s seen that the “gun culture… is closely tied to people’s identities” and notes those people view talk of taking their guns as “an existential threat.”

    “It hasn’t worked it, has polarized our country more and it’s made people dig in more and I’m trying to end the polarization,” he elaborated. People fear “our entire Constitution is under attack,” and to underscore that point, Kennedy cited government censorship, identifying dissenters on social media, and closing businesses during the Covid panic without due process and compensation.

    “Going after people’s guns at this point in history is to me just going to cause more polarization and make it so that we can’t listen to each other anymore because we get put into these kinds of tribal silos which we have to somehow figure out a way to get past,” Kennedy asserted. “We cannot have any more school shootings even if that means protecting schools the same way that we protect Airlines.”

    His answer is way better than a Biden alternative, and it sounds good on the surface– at least to people who haven’t looked very deeply at the issue, like some of the YouTube comment posters.

    “I’m going to refer people to this video when they say your anti 2nd Amendment,” one responded. “I am a pro-gun Conservative and RFK, Jr. could not be more correct on this point. He has my vote,” wrote another.

    So, what did he miss? Aside from the barn?

    That the country is “polarized” and at risk of becoming more so should not be his main argument. Polarization is a necessity because those in “tribal silos” demanding citizen disarmament are wrong. “Compromising” with anyone corrupt or ignorant enough to believe otherwise is surrendering to tyranny.

    As for protecting schools the same way TSA protects airports, he might want to consult reports like “TSA Chief Out After Agents Fail 95 Percent of Airport Breach Tests” and “TSA Misses 70% Of Fake Weapons But That’s An Improvement.” The answer is not expanding a federal Kabuki theater jobs program to more “gun-free zones,” but instead to note the success of the Faculty & Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response armed response program:

    “The FASTER program has trained over 3,000 teachers and school staff. FASTER qualified teachers are in over 300 schools around the country. FASTER has programs in Ohio, Colorado, and Arizona. And it’s growing.”

  12. Pittsburgh Residents Have One More Reason Why They Really Should Consider Owning a Gun
    By
    TTAG Contributor –
    March 26, 2024 11

    As if current worries by many citizens about crime aren’t already high enough, even as overall crime statistics show a reduction in crime since the criminal spikes as a result of the post-George Floyd Defund the Police and No Cash Bail movements, along with the BLM riots, residents in Pittsburgh have more to worry about.

    Call 911 and depending on the time of night or how bad your situation actually is, nobody may be coming to the rescue. There’s simply not enough cops.

    NRA-ILA reports:

    Last month, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Police Chief Larry Scirotto announced major operational changes to police staffing in the city.

    Effective February 26, officers would no longer be responding to 911 calls that weren’t “in-progress emergencies.” Calls about crimes like criminal mischief, theft, and harassment would instead be rerouted to the telephone reporting unit or to online reporting. Burglar alarm calls would require a “second authentication factor” (i.e., a video or audio showing interior motion, or broken glass) before an officer would be dispatched, because the majority of such calls tend to be false alarms. In addition, between the hours of 3 a.m. and 7 a.m., desk officers would no longer be on duty at any of the six zone stations. Chief Scirotto explained that, “[t]here is not any data to support us having our zones manned by personnel from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. For the very one off instance I can’t make an exception.” Those in need of urgent assistance would have to rely on “blue phones” – call boxes with a direct line to 911. Only 22 officers would be covering the entire city during some overnight shifts, due to Chief Scirotto’s conclusion that the data doesn’t support a larger allocation of staff: “it’s enough to cover the entire city at those hours when we have 8 percent of the time people are calling.”

    The reason for these changes is a law enforcement staffing crunch. In 2020, during the nationwide frenzy to “defund the police,” the Pittsburgh City Council passed laws that included a police hiring freeze and a diversion of ten per cent of the annual police budget towards “evidence-based violence prevention social service programs.” A local news source reports that in 2020, the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police consisted of approximately 991 officers and that the city “has historically budgeted” for a 900-number force. Since then, though, retirements, resignations and low recruitment have taken a toll, and numbers continue to dip, down to 740 officers as of this month. The bureau “is losing officers far faster than it recruits them,” and “[o]fficials have acknowledged that there is no hope of getting anywhere near 900 in the foreseeable future.”

    A “Crime and Safety Impact Report” released in late 2023 by the advocacy group Our America looked specifically at crime spikes in several mid-sized cities, including Pittsburgh. According to that report, from 2021 to 2022 Pittsburgh experienced an increase in rapes and robberies, “a 46% rise in shootings that left people injured,” and the highest homicide rate in a decade.

    Perhaps the new reality of reduced police personnel over the foreseeable future will persuade municipal officials to give up on attempts to override the Pennsylvania firearm preemption statute by enacting illegal laws that prevent responsible citizens from defending themselves.

    In 2019, for instance, the Pittsburgh City Council adopted gun control ordinances that included a ban on the use of so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines in public places. The ordinances were immediately challenged by gun rights advocates, including the NRA.

    Court documents filed on behalf of the defendant City and municipal officials indicated that they were “mindful” of the preemption law in enacting the ordinances, and that “[w]ithout state preemption, the City would have gone further and prohibited the purchase and possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.” Counsel for the applicants in the NRA suit predicted that “Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly struck down Pittsburgh ordinances that attempted to regulate firearms in defiance of state law, and we are confident that this latest ordinance will meet the same fate.”

    That’s exactly what happened. In 2022, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, en banc, in the separate case of Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC), et al., v. City of Pittsburgh, et al., affirmed a lower court’s ruling and struck the ordinances as unlawful and preempted. The court specifically pointed out that in passing the ordinances, the respondents ignored state law. The “City was well aware of [the state preemption law] and the abundance of case law from the Courts of this Commonwealth interpreting the expansive preemptive scope of this statutory provision,” and Pittsburgh’s then-mayor, Bill Peduto, had “acknowledged that he and the City Council lacked the authority to enact the Ordinances.”

    Pittsburgh’s new mayor reportedly responded to the ruling by indicating that the City was considering appealing “this dangerous decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, so that local officials across Pennsylvania can do our jobs and keep our constituents safe.” No such appeal has been launched, thereby preserving thousands of taxpayer dollars from a clear case of throwing more good money after bad.

    It does raise the question of what, truly, is a “dangerous decision.” Defunding the police force and imposing a hiring freeze that snowballs into a staffing crisis? Wasting public money to pass and defend local laws in the face of clear advice that the laws are unlawful and beyond the city’s jurisdiction? Is it “protecting” residents from violent crime by enacting illegal gun control measures that burden only the law-abiding? Or is it, to quote the legal counsel for the successful challengers’ to the ordinances, the civic officials’ decision to “circumvent the clear edict of the General Assembly in an attempt to alter the legal landscape to comport with their worldview by whatever means necessary”?

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/pittsburgh-residents-have-one-more-reason-why-they-really-should-consider-owning-a-gun/

  13. “P Diddy is the Epstein of the recording industry.”

    This rapper is arrested, his plane takes off without him, and the commentator along with the commenters know he’s some kind of commonly-known pedophile. I don’t have reason to doubt the claims, but how to these creeps hide so long in plain sight?

    https://youtu.be/NQntLqIJVMY?si=qoHJ7uk-u_b8CPno