an Uncensored Mind – Page 13 – Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.

If this helps…

… then why limit it to health care workers?

Bill makes it felony to threaten, attack health care workers

What’s the purpose of these laws, and their “hate crime” analogues? Is it to exact revenge for their victims? Or is it to deter such attacks by making them painful for the criminals? Either way, why am I – an ordinary citizen not part of some special interest group (pronounced “voting block”) – not offered the same opportunity for revenge and/or crime deterrence? And if these enhanced penalties work, thereby reducing crime against the selected group, why don’t we increase the penalties for attacking all residents?

Oh… because that would make sense. It would also decimate the soft-on-crime policies of liberal DA’s.

If we want a return to law and order, then we need to lock up the criminals – and punish them equally for each crime irrespective of the class/group status of the victim (or the class/group status of the perpetrator!).

Someone’s been taking lessons from Hillary

This news article contains perfect example of a politician utilizing the “three D’s” – Deny, Deflect and Diffuse:

Democrat US House candidate under fire for alleged boozy, profanity-laced tirade at pre-teen slumber party

Deny (It didn’t happen):
“I saw the tweets. I have been out of town on a fundraising trip, and they are awful and offensive and false,” Broyles said to the news outlet. “I mean, I get trolled on Twitter all the time, but I don’t know these women and I don’t know what is behind this, but it’s just not true.”

Deflect (It’s a political attack):
Broyles added that the allegations could have been “cooked up,” and suggested that the 12 and 13-year-old girl’s mothers were using the allegations as a political attack against her … “I’m running for office. You don’t think this is a political attack? You don’t think this is something they cooked up?” Broyles said.

Diffuse (It’s not my fault):
However, in an interview with KFOR, Broyles admitted to going to the house where the sleepover took place. She said that her friend handed her a medication which gave her an “adverse reaction” causing her to hallucinate … “She asked me to come over. She asked me to bring some wine. We had wine and sushi and a couple of hours later, we were upstairs in their theater room watching a movie,” Broyles said. “For years I have struggled with stress and anxiety and insomnia. I took the bar exam on 2 hours of sleep. I mean, this is how far this goes back for me. And she knows that. And she gave me a medication I had never taken before. And I had an adverse reaction. Instead of helping me sleep, I hallucinated. And I don’t remember anything until I woke up or came to, and I was throwing up in a hamper.”

I’d like to point out that – even if her final statement is true – this candidate, by their own admission, took a medication “…that her friend handed her…“, one that she “…had never taken before” (and yet she took it, anyway; bright girl, eh?). I wonder if it was a prescription medication (possibly a crime)? But wait; there’s more. She also admitted in the interview with KOFR of “…struggled with stress and anxiety and insomnia.”

Is that the kind of responsible, stable adult you want to see as your Congressional representative? Is this who you want to determine how your hard-earned tax dollars are spent? Really?

Maybe she should instead apply for a job at the Clinton Foundation. At least she’s got Hillary’s shtick down pat…

Flip sides of the same coin

I keep saying that abortion and gun control are flip sides of the same coin (here and here, for example). Now along comes Gov. Newsom to prove my point. His new law is effectively designed to “get even” with Texas for their recent abortion law, which is still winding its way through the Texas state court system.

California bill to allow citizens to enforce gun ban modeled after Texas heartbeat bill draws Newsom’s support

General gibberish and hyperbole (via Newsom) from the article:

If the conservative-controlled court upholds the Texas law and not California’s, it would show “hypocrisy,” he argued.

“Or it’ll get them to reconsider the absurdity of their previous decision,” Newsom said, adding: “There is no principled way the U.S. Supreme Court cannot uphold this California law. None. Period full stop. It is quite literally modeled after the law they just upheld in Texas.”

Only the Supreme Court has NOT upheld the Texas law; so far they have only ruled on technical issues involving the case as it works its way through the lower court system (which should be allowed to run its course). In the end, when the right argument makes its way to the Supreme Court, I’m sure that the Texas law will be struck down (as will Newsom’s gun law).

I think the real reason for this law is stated by others cited in the article:

To Gallagher, California’s Republican Assembly leader, Newsom’s move is an attempt to appease a disapproving public sick of rising crime.

“He knows that he’s in trouble, and he’s using this as a sideshow distraction to introduce another gun law, so hopefully people will not see and pay attention to his terrible record on their quality of life,” he said. “The governor needs to focus his efforts on things that will lower the cost of living for Californians, actually solve homelessness, instead of one-off gestures that aren’t going to do anything to stop gun violence.”

Even SF has “woken” up to the woke

Who knew this was possible in Krazy Kalifornia?

San Francisco voters recall 3 school board members

Recalled San Francisco School Board Commissioner Alison Collins isn’t accepting lightly that maybe voters are just tired of her racist politics:

“We now know what it costs to buy an election in San Francisco,” she said…

Yeah – that explains why almost 78% of voters tossed Ms. Collins to the curb. In addition, almost 74% voted for the recall of board president Gabriela Lopez and almost 71% for the recall of board vice president Faauuga Moliga (results as of 2/17/22 16:01:22).

When you lose by these margins in a liberal city like San Fransisco, it’s hard to blame the opposition party. But that didn’t stop local politicians, who blamed the losses on “closet Republicans”. But I’ve got to ask: is it really wise – in a liberal, progressive, LGBTQ stronghold like San Francisco – to refer to your opposition as being in the “closet”?

Really?

Sometimes, you’ve just got to laugh

Unfortunately, often what seems funny hits surprisingly close to home:

Equality vs. Equity (cartoon)

“…a few people…waving swastikas…”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is cited as having expressed the following sentiment regarding the “Freedom Convoy” truckers overtaking Ottawa:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau derided the thousands of citizens protesting lockdowns and mask mandates as “a few people shouting and waving swastikas.”

The implication, of course, is that the truckers somehow support the ideals and symbolism of the swastika.

I was shocked! Canadian freedom truckers supporting the ideals of Hitler’s Nazi regime? How could they! I scoured the Internet to find photographic evidence of this transgression, only to find that the truth had been stretched far beyond reason by a government in the name of fighting its opposition.

Each and every photo I could find (try searching yourself; lots of stories but few pictures) showed that the use of the swastika by protestors was meant to call out the government as fascist – not the truckers. It was used to describe the government, not to describe the beliefs of the protestors. And yet – as presented by the liberal press and the government itself (via Trudeau’s statement) – the government would have you believe that it was the intent of the protestors to describe their support for the ideals associated with the Nazi use of the symbol. Little could be further from the truth.

Well, at least it shows that the use of manufactured propaganda as a political tool (a Nazi tactic?) isn’t restricted to only American left-wing political groups…

Stifling free speech the world over

Normalizing our role as the school yard wimp, handing our lunch money over to bullies like China and Russia, Nancy Pelosi is asking Olympic athletes to bite their tongue rather than risk the ire of their Chinese hosts:

Pelosi warns US athletes not to risk ‘incurring the anger’ of ‘ruthless’ Chinese government during Olympics

Stifling free speech so as to not offend (i.e.: cancel culture) is bad enough; but so as to not offend our new Chinese masters? Really? What’s next; instructing our athletes to lose so as to not offend those who wish to destroy us?

I really thought Trump was a tool, but at least we didn’t get walked on during his watch (no one wants to challenge a crazy man…).

Whoopi v. Ilya

Whoopie Goldberg claims that the the holocaust wasn’t about race; 6 million Jews who were there (and many more who weren’t) disagree. She makes a non-apology (“I stand corrected”, hardly sounds like an apology to me!) and everyone – on the left, anyway – forgives.

Ilya Shapiro states that the best choice for appointment to the Supreme Court is an Indian-American progressive of Hindu faith, Sri Srinivasan. He also states that due to Biden’s promise to progressives we must instead “…get lesser black woman.” Ilya profusely apologizes for his poor choice of words (“I sincerely and deeply apologize…”), even though a reasonable person would assume that ANY choice other than Sri Srinivasan would be considered a “lesser” choice by Shapiro – irrespective of the color of their skin. The left goes nuts and demands he be fired from Georgetown law, citing his statement as “racist”.

I don’t have a problem with Whoopi’s statement; she’s entitled to her opinion (on which she was promptly corrected by millions). But I do have a problem with the double standard afforded liberals vs. conservatives for their poor choice of words when it is clear that no malice was intended.

We’ll have to see if Georgetown has the courage to stand up for free speech. I’ve got my fingers crossed.

“Conditional” free speech

Joe Rogan has become a target of the frightful left:

Joe Rogan, Spotify controversy continues with Graham Nash, Indie Arie pulling from platform

Nash provided a statement cited in the article above saying in part:

“There is a difference between being open to varying viewpoints on a matter and knowingly spreading false information which some 270 medical professionals have derided as not only false but dangerous.

No, there isn’t. Medical professionals have differing opinions, and some will be in the minority. Being “…open to varying viewpoints…” means being open to those minority viewpoints, whether or not you agree. Claiming that only some are correct (and just where did you get your medical degree, Graham?) and therefor no others should be heard is anathema to free speech.

Arie provided an even more bizarre, contradictory statement. From the article cited above:

“Neil Young opened a door that I MUST walk through,” she wrote Monday. I believe in freedom of speech,” The artist wrote. “However, I find Joe Rogan problematic for reasons OTHER than his Covid interviews… FOR ME ITS ALL HIS language around race.”

Soooo… she believes in freedom of speech – except when she doesn’t like what is being said? Where on earth (except North Korea) is that the definition of “free speech”? But it gets worse; she goes on to rally against Rogan not for what he says, but how much he is paid:

She continued: What I am talking about is RESPECT – who gets it and who doesn’t. Paying musicians a Fraction of a penny? And HIM $100M? This shows the type of company they are and the company that they keep.”

Envious much, Ms. Arie? Because it sounds like you’re mad that Rogan’s popularity garners him a bigger paycheck than you. Are you trying to shut him down out of jealousy, because your work is valued so much less than his?

I don’t listen to Joe Rogan; that’s my choice. But those who claim that he should not be heard are dangerous.

Hang in there, Spotify! I’m rooting for you!