Category: Politics

“Are you F**king high?!?”

As it turns out, in California the answer is probably “yes”:

California bill decriminalizing personal use of psychedelics, magic mushrooms heads to Newsom’s desk

Nah…. more homeless drug users won’t “immigrate” to California as a result of this bill, will they?

I love this quote from California Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher:

“If Democrats don’t think this will make things worse, they’re hallucinating…”

Bizarrely, democrats had another take:

Democrat State Assemblyman Scott Wiener, who introduced the bill, argued that veterans and first responders struggling with PTSD, depression, and addiction “deserve access to these promising plant medicines.”

WTF? Veterans and first responders – like military personnel and police officers? People with guns and PTSD? Do we really want them hallucinating on ‘shrooms?!? And should people suffering from “…PTSD, depression and addiction…” really be allowed to self-medicate without doctor supervision?

In truth, I’m all for people being able to take any reasonable drug that they want – even psychedelics. It’s their body and mind. However it should remain illegal for people to use such drugs in public, as it endangers them and others. Also, any users of such drugs should be restricted in their use and possession of firearms (particularly in California).

Any bill that permits the decriminalization of such drugs should include a stipulation that the use of these drugs in the public space is still illegal. This would keep drug use by homeless in the public space an offense that – if the cause of their homelessness – can be used by the courts to direct them into appropriate treatment.

“A banana republic, if you can keep it…”

Using our legal system to jail political opponents for protected speech? And these same people are calling Trump a fascist? Really??

Dershowitz slams GA indictment, says Trump used same tactics as Al Gore in 2000: not a ‘crime’

(Full disclosure: I have not yet read the GA indictment.)

I don’t care how much you hate Trump; this is getting ridiculous. When even staunch democrats like Alan Dershowitz side with Trump, it’s a clear sign that something is wrong.

The article cited above also notes that the Georgia prosecutors had inadvertently posted their indictment – before the grand jury had even voted. From the article:

The district attorney’s office erroneously posted an indictment document earlier on Monday prior to the grand jury vote. They reportedly said that document was “fictitious” and it was taken down off the website. 

Dershowitz had the following response regarding this farce:

“Nobody should take the indictments at all seriously, because they announced the indictment before the grand jury even voted. So the grand jury is just a rubber stamp. And so, nobody should say, ‘Oh, the grand jury indicted, so it must be serious,’” Dershowitz said.

“It’s not the grand jury who indicted, it’s the prosecutors,” he added.

Well, at least we can still be a shining example … for banana republics everywhere.

Hunter Biden plea/diversion agreement

The rejected Hunter Biden plea/diversion deal did do one good thing: it would have prevented Hunter Biden from ever owning firearms again. However, this does not offset the “walk” he received on all the other possible pending charges as a result of what some perceive is an improper application of the diversion agreement.

A diversion agreement typically prevents the government, upon the defendant’s completion of the diversion requirements, from prosecuting the defendant for actions admitted in the diversion agreement “statement of facts”. Basically, if you admit your guilt as part of your diversion plea, such admissions can’t be used against you future proceedings (unless you violate the diversion agreement) and you can’t be additionally charged for the crimes admitted.

Hunter Biden’s diversion agreement included such a “statement of facts” related to the accusations against him (drug use, firearms possession, etc.). However, the diversion agreement also made reference to the “statement of facts” provided by Hunter in the tax plea deal (which was NOT a diversion agreement).  The result is that any admissions in the “statement of facts” for the separate tax plea deal would also be protected from prosecution – including admissions that may relate to his failure to register as a foreign agent. This is inappropriate, since the tax plea deal is NOT part of the diversion agreement – only the gun charges apply there.

While I’m glad that – if the plea/diversion agreements ever go through – Hunter Biden will never again own firearms, the diversion agreement should not provide him with an “escape clause” for all the other things he’s done. If that’s what the government wants to do – and I think they do, for political reasons –  then they should have to admit that openly in the plea agreement. Hiding it in the separate diversion agreement is an act of cowards.

Americans must REALLY be stupid…

… to believe the Hunter Biden “art” fiasco. Here’s an example of alleged influence purchasing via his “art”:

Hunter Biden’s gallery sold first son’s artwork to major Dem donor appointed to prestigious commission: Report

So the idea (as peddled by the Biden administration) is that since the art dealers (and the government) refuse to release the names of people who buy Hunter Biden’s “art”, he can’t be influenced by the buyers. Of course, this is a complete load of dingos kidneys.

There is NOTHING to prevent the BUYER from telling Hunter. There is NOTHING preventing HUNTER from telling the BUYER which painting to buy and for how much. Just because the dealer doesn’t release the information means nothing. But the scheme does protect the administration by preventing the release of buyer information which might provide proof of a “pay for play” scheme (as alleged in the above-referenced article).

The reality is that the best way to prevent preferential treatment for Hunter Biden’s “art” patrons is to make public the names of the buyers. Then we could compare the list of buyers with those receiving special treatment, thereby discouraging such attempts at selling access or favors. But, of course, under those conditions I’m pretty sure good ol’ Hunter’s painting would sell, if at all, for no more than $ 1.98 at Walmart…

501c3 as a political entity?

OK, so isn’t this a “…public statement of position…“, or a statement “…in opposition to any candidate for public office…“? And for a 501c3, isn’t this against the law? If so, why isn’t the IRS investigating?

Seattle Pride parade booth encourages kids to throw toy bricks at pictures of Republicans

 Oh, right…. this administration selectively enforces the law (as an end-run around the law). A well-learned lesson from George Soros – if you don’t charge someone, they can’t be convicted! Not that the IRS needs lessons in political bias…

…by the consent of the governed…

How did our government devolve from “by the people” to “by the elite” in only ~200 years? Is this the natural order of the universe, a result of the political analogue of entropy? Are all political systems doomed to eventually decay into a system of despotic, oligarchic rule? And what can be done about it?

I am reminded of a quote from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, the now-cancelled (!?!) 3rd President of the United States:

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

I’m not advocating that we overthrow our government, nor do I believe that this is necessarily implied by Jefferson’s words. I am, however, suggesting that perhaps we remind our political overseers that they govern by the consent of the governed – all of them, not just the 50.1% needed to keep them in office.

Weaponizing Homeland Security against Parents

You can’t make this shit up:

Randi Weingarten Gets a New Gig in the Federal Government

Really – the head of the United Federation of Teachers, the organization that has chastised parents for attempting to block the woke agenda of the education system – is now a member of the (Department of ) Homeland Security Academic Partnership Council. Per Mayorkas, the council is:

“…helping us counter the evolving and emerging threats to the homeland…”

Hell, just that sentence alone makes my skin crawl; the use of the word “homeland” here is just too reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s “fatherland” tag.

But the point remains that placing a teacher’s union president with a history of demonizing parent on what is essentially a school security council for a police agency – well, that’s  just not going to end well. I can visualize the result as nothing less than arming the teacher’s union with effectively police powers in their drive to silence parents. I don’t understand how people can fail to recognize the potential damage this can cause – to both our children and our right to raise them as we see fit.

It’s unfortunate that the current political climate is “us vs. them”, with people voting for their “team” rather than for what is right. It’s time we put aside our “team” banners and do what is necessary to preserve our way of life and defeat those willing to sacrifice the primary tenets of our Constitution. If it’s not too late…

RUFKM?!?

UPDATE: It appears I was wrong. The original plea/diversion agreement specifically disallows Hunter Biden from owning firearms in the future. Thank dog!

If this doesn’t prove that the justice system is biased under the current administration, then you’re not paying attention:

Hunter Biden agrees to plead guilty in tax case and avoid prosecution on gun charge

Misdemeanor charges for tax evasion? With a maximum sentence of 12 months each? DIVERSION for the gun charge? Really?!?

The worst part is his diversion plea on the gun charge. Because Hunter is entering a “diversion” program for the FELONY gun charge (the same charge for which this woman will likely receive 18 – 24 months in prison), at the end of the process he will be able to have the charges dismissed. No felony conviction at all!

What does this mean? HE’LL STILL BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS!!!!

That’s right. Federal law prohibits someone from owning firearms if (this is just a partial list applicable to this case):

1) They are convicted of a crime – any crime – for which they COULD be sentenced to more than 1 year in prison (regardless of the actual sentence given). This plea deal allows Hunter to plead to a specific charge with a one year maximum sentence, preserving his right to own a firearm.

2) They are convicted of a felony – such as the gun charge here – which Biden will avoid with his “diversion” sentence when the charges are dismissed at the end of the process.

In the end, all Hunter has to do is claim that he is no longer a drug user or addict (provided there is no new laptop full of pictures to contradict him) and – Presto! Biden can once again own guns.

I repeat – RUFKM?!?