Reader’s Links for Nov. 23, 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. The Substack is a different project in a sense. It is older videos that in the light of subsequent events, look different or of increased importance, Check it out now and again if you like.

About Eeyore

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

5 Replies to “Reader’s Links for Nov. 23, 2024”

  2. Make Crime Illegal Again
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on November 23, 2024 by NRAHQ

    Opinion
    Crime Tape
    iStock

    While less prominent than the red sweep of the nation’s electoral map and the triumph of President Donald Trump, another telling development following the 2024 elections was the number of Californians in ultra-progressive strongholds who showed that they had had enough, finally, of the far left’s worse-than-useless criminal justice agenda and the havoc it wreaks on public safety.

    In Oakland, California, for example, crime has surged since the COVID-19 pandemic. “Oakland’s overall 2023 crime rate was higher than at any time in the past two decades, … up 65 percent since 2020;” the 2023 violent crime rate was up 33 percent since 2020, and the 2023 property crime rate increased by 74 percent since 2020. Unhappy residents reacted with separate recall petitions to get rid of Oakland’s mayor and the Alameda County District Attorney, Pamela Price, whose district includes Oakland.

    The crime spike was a major motivator in the movement to recall Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, described on the city’s website as “one of the Bay Area’s strongest and most effective progressive leaders.” Proponents of the recall claimed that Thao had created a “public safety crisis” by “systematically dismantling the Oakland Police Department, leading to the city’s reputation as one of the most dangerous in America,” “unjust terminat[ed]” police chief LeRonne Armstrong, resulting “in a surge of serious and violent crimes,” admitted to missing the deadline to apply for millions of dollars in state grants to combat retail theft, and “failed to implement Oakland’s Encampment Management Policy, leading to open-air drug markets and chop shops, making Oakland a national leader in stolen cars.”

    The same resentment likely fueled the recall of District Attorney Pamela Price, just two years into her term. Shortly after taking office in 2023, Price had implemented new sentencing and case disposition guidelines for prosecutors, pursuant to which the presumptive sentencing offer would be probation for all cases that were probation-eligible; otherwise, the sentencing offer would be the low term. Almost all felonies, including those that were serious or violent, would be probation-eligible.

    In short, “[b]arring ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and approval by District Attorney Pamela Price herself, the penalty for most crimes in Alameda County [would] be restricted to probation or the lowest-level prison term.”

    Price’s recall, supported by the Alameda County Prosecutors’ Association and all the police unions in the county, was the first ever of a District Attorney to appear on the ballot in Alameda County, while Thao’s removal was historic, too, reportedly being the County’s first successful mayoral recall. The election results currently show overwhelming support, with almost 65% of the electorate sending the progressive duo the message,

    “You’re fired!”

    ADVERTISEMENT
    SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING

    Across the bay in San Francisco, Mayor London Breed was voted out of office, defeated by a challenger with no previous political experience but who pledged to “bring accountability back to public safety.” During Breed’s six years in office, San Francisco became a byword for urban decay, with homeless encampments, abandoned storefronts, open-air drug use, and rampant retail theft and other crimes. In a precursor of the electorate’s changing mood, two years ago a sizeable majority of voters approved the recall of the “poster child for the progressive prosecutors’ movement,” San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin.

    Significantly, half of the new mayor-elect’s 13-point campaign plan focused on addressing crime in San Francisco – to “get serious about public safety” by increasing police staffing, improve 911 response times, “take action to stop smash and grabs, car break-ins, and retail theft,” “shut down open-air drug markets,” and “prevent crime from happening” through mental health and substance abuse treatment. “It is time to end the perception that lawlessness is an acceptable part of life in San Francisco,” he said, as “criminals must know that they will be caught and there will be consequences.”

    Elsewhere in the Golden State, another eminent progressive also failed to hang onto his job. Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón – “one of the most progressive in the nation” – lost his bid for re-election after withstanding two previous attempts to recall him.

    Gascón had co-authored California’s controversial Proposition 47, a 2014 ballot measure that, among other things, reclassified certain property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, triggering endemic shoplifting and organized theft crimes. As the L.A. County D.A., Gascón “barred prosecutors in his office from seeking the death penalty and various sentencing enhancements, stopped the prosecution of juveniles as adults and ended cash bail for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies.” His successful challenger, Nathan Hochman, had campaigned on Gascón’s public safety failures and promised to end his soft-on-crime policies. “George Gascón has miserably failed to protect our residents, leading to a spiral of lawlessness … It’s time to stop playing politics with people’s lives. It’s time we had a DA who fights for victims—not criminals.”

    In a broader strike against the radical left’s criminal justice reforms, citizens across the state appalled by the explosion in property and drug crimes overwhelmingly supported the passage of Proposition 36. This ballot measure would undo, in part, Proposition 47’s changes by increasing penalties for criminals who repeatedly engage in theft, and adding new laws to address “smash and grab” thefts that result in significant losses and damage or that are committed by organized theft gangs. It would add fentanyl to the existing laws that prohibit the possession of hard drugs while armed with a loaded firearm, and allow judges to sentence drug dealers to state prison instead of county jail in some cases.

    Although Proposition 36 was supported by the California District Attorneys Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Republican Party, and major retailers like Target, Walmart, and Home Depot, it was opposed by the California Democratic Party and Governor Gavin Newsom. Regardless, the latest results show that millions of California’s voters supported the measure as well, with just a hair short of 70% ticking “yes” to Proposition 36 and the hope of safer communities.

    The downfall of so many prominent anti-gun progressives signals a long-overdue day of reckoning over their disastrous, revisionist criminal justice experiment, marked by undermined law enforcement, lenient prosecution, reduced or no consequences for criminal behavior, and the escalating victimization of honest citizens. It is likely too soon to expect a similar enlightenment to occur with respect to the state’s gun laws, but it is a welcome indicator of what happens when residents demand public safety, political accountability, and law and order.

    https://www.ammoland.com/2024/11/make-crime-illegal-again/

  3. SCOTUS Schedules Arguments Over Mexico’s Lawsuit Against Gunmakers
    By Cam Edwards | 7:01 PM | November 22, 2024
    AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File

    We’ve known for almost two months that the Supreme Court will decide the future of Mexico’s lawsuit against several U.S. gunmakers that accuses them of aiding and abetting cartel violence south of the border, but now we have a date for oral arguments in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unios Mexicanos.
    Advertisement

    The justices have calendared the case for oral arguments on March 4, 2025, which means we’re likely to get a decision in the case towards the end of the court’s term next June. At issue is whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico, as well as whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked south of the border.

    U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor dismissed the case against the gunmakers back in 2022, ruling that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act “unequivocally bars lawsuits seeking to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the acts of individuals using guns for their intended purpose”, but the First Circuit Court of Appeals revived the lawsuit. In its decision, the appellate court held that Mexico plausibly alleged U.S. gun companies violated the federal law against aiding and abetting firearms trafficking, and said it was likely that the companies’ business practices are the “proximate cause” of Mexico’s cartel violence.

    The First Circuit kicked the case back down to Saylor, who in August of this year once again dismissed the lawsuit against most of the defendants, ruling that the companies had no real ties to the state of Massachusetts, where the lawsuit was filed.
    Advertisement

    Mexico’s foreign ministry responded by saying that legal action against the six firms would continue and that it was considering presenting an appeal or resorting to other U.S. courts.

    “This decision does not affect the lawsuit against these two companies nor does it absolve the other six companies of responsibility,” the ministry told Reuters.

    The two remaining defendants are Smith & Wesson Brands, which in 2021 announced it was relocating to Tennessee from Massachusetts over gun regulations, and wholesaler Witmer Public Safety Group.

    Saylor’s second opinion is now on appeal as well, but if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the defendants the entirety of Mexico’s lawsuit, which seeks $10 billion in damages, will be kaput. In their cert petition to SCOTUS, attorneys for Smith & Wesson and other manufacturers made the stakes of the litigation crystal clear.

    Absent this Court’s intervention, Mexico’s multi-billion-dollar suit will hang over the American firearms industry for years, inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters. Worse, so long as the decision below remains good law, scores of similar suits are destined to follow from other governments, both foreign and domestic—all seeking to distract from their own political failings by laying the blame for criminal violence at the feet of the American firearms industry. Even if ultimately unsuccessful, the costs of that litigation will be devastating—not only for defendants, but more importantly for the millions of law-abiding Americans who rely on the firearms industry to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights. This type of lawfare is exactly what Congress enacted PLCAA to avoid.

    At bottom, this case reduces to a clash of national values: Mexico makes no secret that it abhors this country’s approach to firearms, and that it wants to use the American court system to impose domestic gun controls on the United States that the American people themselves would never accept through the ordinary political process. But even though that grievance is placed under the lettering of a complaint, and was filed on a docket, it has no basis in law. This Court’s review is badly needed.

    Advertisement

    Mexico’s claims that U.S. gunmakers are willfully aiding and abetting the cartels are utterly baseless, and ignore the role that corrupt government officials in Mexico play in fueling the cartel violence. Beyond the corruption that’s inherent at all levels of government in Mexico, the “hugs, not bullets” strategy adopted by former Mexico president Andrés Manuel López Obrador and continued by his successor Claudia Sheinbaum has also played a major role in the growth and strength of the cartels.

    Dismissing Mexico’s case should be an easy call for the Supreme Court. It’s not U.S. gunmakers who are responsible for the cartels’ violence. It’s the cartels themselves. And if any group is aiding and abetting their chaos and destruction, it’s the Mexican government itself. The shameless scapegoating of the American firearms industry needs to stop, and thankfully SCOTUS will get the opportunity to shut it down in just a few months.

    https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/11/22/scotus-schedules-arguments-over-mexicos-lawsuit-against-gunmakers-n1226977

  5. “Leftist don’t meet to reflect, they meet to plot revenge.”

    Tammy Bruce on the Big Weekend Show talking about the therapy sessions held by the Deep State after Trump won the election.