Tag Archives: culture

Time to Cut Turkey Loose

Posted on by
Reply

Turkey—its President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, anyway—objects to the Swedish government decision to not investigate a Kurdish protest in Stockholm over the protestors having committed no crime. Erdoğan has been threatening to block Sweden’s accession to NATO (which requires unanimous consent of the members) if Sweden doesn’t treat the Kurds IAW Erdoğan’s demands, Swedish law be damned. The present case is no exception. Erdoğan’s panties are especially wedgied because the protestors hung his effigy from a lamppost in central Stockholm.

It’s time to be done with Erdoğan’s preciousness and his hurted feelings. Turkey needs to be removed from NATO altogether. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has shown himself, for long enough, to be no friend and to be an unreliable ally and NATO member. NATO needs figure out how to expel Turkey from NATO, and get it done.

And don’t worry about Turkey’s control of the outlet from the Black Sea and Erdoğan’s sub rosa support for Russia. The straits at both ends of that outlet are narrow and easily plugged if needs be.

Facebook Collusion?

Posted on by
Reply

According to the latest installment of Email Revelations, Facebook—i.e., Mark Zuckerberg, since he owns an outright majority of the voting shares of his Facebook (and its reincarnation, Meta)—responded to pressure from the White House (which can only mean President Joe Biden (D), since he’s the White House guy in charge) rather meekly (IMNSHO).

Facebook told an official at the Biden White House in March 2021 that the Big Tech company took action against the “virality” of “often-true content” regarding the COVID-19 vaccines, in addition to suppressed misinformation about the shots.

Zuckerberg, via his (identity redacted) staffer:

As you know, in addition to removing vaccine misinformation, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable information. This is often-true content, which we allow at the post level because it is important for people to be able to discuss both their personal experiences and concerns about the vaccine, but it can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.

Can be framed as…. By whom, exactly? Apparently by Zuckerberg and his minions.

Is Zuckerberg an abject coward, then, caving to unenforceable “pressure,” or is he all-in with the Progressive-Democrats and their demand to control speech?

I write, you decide.

But It Wasn’t Me

Posted on by
Reply

The re-elect Lori Lightfoot for Chicago mayor sent an email to area high schools and to City Colleges of Chicago asking teachers to grant class credit to student volunteers who would work on her campaign. Not on any campaign for mayor or for any city office, but only on Lightfoot’s campaign for mayor.

When the campaign’s move was publicly exposed, Lightfoot claimed the email was a mistake and shouldn’t have gone out.

Then she blamed a junior staffer for the foul-up.

While Lightfoot called the email a mistake and said she was apologizing, putting all the blame on one young staffer. [sic] Lightfoot said she only learned the staffer reached out to CPS teachers and City Colleges staff on work emails Wednesday afternoon.

She tried to lighten the blame game:

“It was a mistake, she understands it was a mistake,” Lightfoot said.
…
Rather than firing the staffer, Lightfoot said it will be a teaching moment for her campaign….

However.

The staffer was operating directly within the parameters Lightfoot, as the MFWIC of that operation, already had set up. Lightfoot didn’t even acknowledge her own role in the mistake; she laid the whole thing off on the young woman.

Lightfoot’s procedure is simply to duck all responsibility and toss the staffer, who’s in no position to defend herself from her boss’ accusation, under the Mayoral bus. With Lightfoot at the controls.

“violent extremist views”

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the cowardice and the bigotry of the Los Angeles Police Department management coterie. That crowd has banned the Thin Blue Line flag from being displayed in any of the department’s public areas. Never mind that that flag symbolizes support for the policemen and policewomen who are in the streets on their beats protecting the rest of us.

LAPD Chief Michel Moore defended the controversial move in an email sent to Fox News Digital, saying, “Yesterday, we received a community complaint of the presence of a Blue Line Flag” with “the view that it symbolized support for violent extremist views, such as those represented by the Proud Boys and others.”

Then Moore actually acknowledged the…bizarreness…of his move; although he doesn’t seem to recognize it.

It’s unfortunate that extremist groups have hijacked the use of the “Thin Blue Line flag” to symbolize their undemocratic, racist, and bigoted views.

But he banned the flag, anyway, instead of defending the meaning and rejecting the extremist groups‘ hijack.

The police union demurred from Moore’s move. The Los Angeles Police Protective League Board of Directors wrote in part,

It is difficult to express the level of utter disgust and disappointment with Chief Moore’s politically pandering directive to remove Thin Blue Line flags and memorials for fallen officers from all public areas within our police stations. This direction came as a result of complaints from anti-police, criminal apologists, and activists who hold too much sway over our city leaders and, unfortunately, our Chief[.]

Naked, bare-faced pandering, true enough. I think, though, it’s far worse than that: it’s cowardice and rank bigotry.

It’s cowardice because Moore and his management group caved promptly and cravenly to, in Moore’s own words, a collection of undemocratic, racist, and bigoted extremists.

It’s rank bigotry because Moore and his fellows in management carefully, consciously disregarded the violent extremism his flag ban inflicts on us average Americans who do respect the police and wish to show that respect with the Thin Blue Line flag, especially in police department public areas; it inflicts that same violent extremism on the police themselves by barring their own public display; and it favors the views of violent extremists like BLM, antifa, and other undemocratic, racist, and bigoted groups over the views of honest Americans and our cops.

Proud Censorship, and Keeping and Bearing

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois’ law banning even the possession of semiautomatic weapons took effect last Tuesday, when the Progressive-Democrat governor, JB Pritzker, signed the bill after the Illinois House passed what the State’s Senate had handed over.

Aside from the plain unconstitutionality of the law, though, what especially drew my attention is this statement from Pritzker:

We will keep fighting—bill by bill, vote by vote, and protest by protest—to ensure that future generations only hear about massacres like Highland Park, Sandy Hook, and Uvalde in their textbooks[.]

No one is to be allowed access to, Illinois’ children are to be denied, information regarding firearms other than what the Progressive-Democratic Party that rules Illinois approves.

Pritzker openly brags about that denial of speech.

Related is this position by Edwards County, IL, Sheriff Darby Boewe:

Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution. One of those rights enumerated is the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS provided under the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people.

Boewe is absolutely correct on the matter except for the narrowness of his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. What that Amendment says, in full, is this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to be able to mount an effective Militia, each of us American citizens must be able to be individually armed and facile with our individually owned weapons. Government is not permitted to limit the weapons any of us can possess and keep with us wherever we might go (especially if we’re needed for a Militia and its suite of weapons), nor is Government permitted to dictate to any of us our purpose in the possessing and carrying—that Militia is only one such purpose. Defense of life, liberty and property is only one such purpose. Shall not be infringed is much broader.