Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Its rather unfortunate that sometimes when the prosecutors and courts won't take effective action to hold serial wrongdoers accountable, then street justice takes over:

"Caines, curled up on the sidewalk in a defensive fetal position, is dealt multiple blows by the two attackers, whose faces are never shown.

The two men laugh to themselves as they kick Caines and stomp on his legs.

Caines is heard wailing in pain during the beatdown.

The clip quickly cuts to an image of Caines with a large gash on his forehead, above his left eye. Blood streams down his face as the men issue a final warning.

“Stop violating these females out here, you heard?” the man filming the footage tells him.

“We’re tired of that s–t,” the man explains. “You’re making us look bad.”

Caines appeared to confirm he understood, before saying, “I went to jail, didn’t I?”

“F–k jail — we’re worse than jail,” the man yells before delivering one last punch to his head.

Caines was arrested on Nov. 13 for his serial spitting spree."

https://nypost.com/2025/11/29/us-news/brooklyn-spitter-left-bloodied-by-two-men-tired-of-his-vile-antics/

I don't think the cops will be looking too hard for his attackers.

[Commenter_XY]

Can the NYPD give the beatdown artists a plaque, thanking them for their public service (raising cane on spitter Caines)?

Street justice is sometimes rough; it is justice nonetheless.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, that is what the murder of Charlie Howard was intended to be.
Personally, I think they got the wrong man.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Raising Cain. Unless you own a sugar plantation.

[Drewski]

Something no Jew would say. At this point I'd bet money you're in Iran or Pakistan.

[Sarcastr0]

Street justice is justice except all the times it's not.

When it's someone who is mentally ill, or not guilty at all, or when the mob gets whipped up such that the punishment is out of proportion.

The Death Wish franchise was reactionary nonsense (though fun as hell if that's your taste).
There's a reason we have systems for these things.

[Kazinski]

Then the system should do its job.

It not compassion, its heartless, to leave someone who is mentally ill, with extreme anti-social tendencies to put them right back out on the street where they victimize others, and the community sees that the system isn't going to do anything to curb their behavior.

And if he isn't mentally ill he needs at least a year or two in jail.

Its not compassion to leave mentally ill.

[Sarcastr0]

So what do you want? Locking people up because of tendencies?

There will always be angry violent assholes using 'justice' as cover.

You prove too much. Use your logic as applied to the right-wing boogeyman of Antifa.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you don't lock people up because of "tendencies", if they never act on them.

Once they act on them, they're fair game.

[Commenter_XY]

This simple observation eludes the Man of Science = Once they act on them, they're fair game.

[Sarcastr0]

Correct me if I'm wrong - it's tricky to stich together Kaz and your comments. But it sounds like you want much harsher than current penalties for minor crimes, since they demonstrate 'anti-social tendencies.'

The worst libertarian.

[Brett Bellmore]

As long as they're minor crimes that are violations of the libertarian non-aggression principle, there's nothing the least bit unlibertarian about wanting harsh penalties.

[bernard11]

"Fair game" for who, Brett and XY? The police? Yes, of course.

Fair game for two random thugs who take it on themselves to decide the appropriate punishment? No. You know, the thugs themselves are criminals, maybe worse than Caines. Would it be OK with you if some of Caines' friends decided to go beat them up?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, as remarked above, this is what happens when the government refuses to do its job. The government can't claim a monopoly on dishing out justice, and then refuse to dish out justice.

[bernard11]

Then the system should do its job.

The article says the guy was arrested and the police are investigating, including looking for other victims to come forward.

And let's suppose the guy is mentally ill, hardly improbable. What is your suggestion as to how he should be treated?

[Nelson]

“ Its rather unfortunate that sometimes when the prosecutors and courts won't take effective action to hold serial wrongdoers accountable, then street justice takes over:”

No, it is illegal. Calling it unfortunate is like calling it an accident when someone walks up to a random stranger and punches them in the face.

There is no “we don’t think they got enough punishment in court” exception to violent assault.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, government's right to do this sort of thing is premised on the idea that it's a valid sort of thing to do, and the government takes on the job to prevent excess, and spare people the need to handle it themselves.

Of course, we all know that the government is a protection racket, and mostly what you're paying for is protection from the government itself, but it's still expected that they'll provide some real protection on the side, to make the pretense a bit more convincing.

If the government refuses to do the job it has seized from the people, the right to do it reverts back to the people.

[Nelson]

“ If the government refuses to do the job it has seized from the people, the right to do it reverts back to the people.”

As a general thing, that’s not true. You can’t take the law into your own hands just because you think the government isn’t doing things the way you think they should.

In this case it’s even worse, since he had already been tried and served his term but the violent vigilante mob still attacked him.

Vigilantism is virtually never justified.

[AmosArch]

Take a good long look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI30F0Vt88E

This is what the drug trafficker apologist progs, including some on this very site, are fighting for. To them the kind of men who cause this are the most precious people in the world. More precious than the entire population of America. They would and in some ways already are in the process of attempting to sacrifice your children to prevent any harm coming to the people who cause stuff like this.

[bloocow2]

Do you ever take a break? Maybe go outside and look at trees or something? You genuinely sound quite unhinged, like most of your interaction with people is through typing angry words into a reply form.

Like, seriously? You genuinely think people on this website want to sacrifice your children, that this is the future they're actively fighting for? Maybe try reading your comments out aloud to your psychiatrist, see what they think.

[Kazinski]

Go outside and look at trees in the dark when its almost winter?

Address his point.

[bloocow2]

With respect, if someone's "point" is that progressives want people's children to die, it doesn't deserve to be "addressed" any more than someone's point about lizard men controlling the government. That person needs to get off the internet and see a therapist about their anger issues.

Quite frankly, more than a few people here could stand to get off the internet for a while. It really isn't healthy.

[ThePublius]

"Quite frankly, more than a few people here could stand to get off the internet for a while. "

Lead the way.

[bloocow2]

*shrug*

Well, I tried. I genuinely don't know how someone can function if they hate their political opponents to the extent that people seem to here. This level of vitriol is absolutely insane to me.

But if that's the water you want to swim in... fine, I guess? Clearly there's not much I can do about it, so I'll just go off and catch up on the latest episode of Pluribus (which is great btw).

[Malika la Maize]

It was a valiant try. I think two things go on with extremist partisans:

1. If the other side is not your neighbors who disagree with you but a cabal of dirty-trick playing depraved evil-doers then you’re joining the Forces of Light against the Forces of Darkness. That lends a sense of heroism to a life that might otherwise not be very exciting and makes tricky questions easy ones.

2. If the other side is as described then that can justify the actions of your side that might otherwise trouble you.

[hobie]

I agree, It was a valiant try. But the hillbillies here trade strictly in hyperbole. It's how they receive the information they use. Like yesterday, I was driving to Walmart listening to AM talk. They guy says something to the effect:

"These were just peaceful people that wanted to see the inside of the Capitol. While at the same time BLM was burning down entire cities..."

The 'entire cities' crack was too much even for me so I switched to NPR. Normal brains know bullshit when they hear it. But the brains of modern hillbillies? Not so much

We use the word cult for a reason. Part of being in a cult is the suspension of disbelief.

[DDHarriman]

There are ample videos of citizens walking peacefully inside the velvet ropes, many even being guided by Capitol police on J6.

There aren't any videos of the Democrat blacks being escorted by city police while they burned, looted, and murdered Whites everywhere during the Summer of black Love

[Malika la Maize]

And ample videos of capitol protestors being violent. Nice try.

[Mr. Bumble]

Mostly peaceful?

[Malika la Maize]

I think it’s fair to say most people at the protest were not violent, but a lot of the ones were.

[DDHarriman]

Yes, some were. The Antifa and FBI plants were the violent ones.

At least that's what the video evidence shows.

[Nelson]

“ There are ample videos of citizens walking peacefully inside the velvet ropes, many even being guided by Capitol police on J6.”

And there are ample videos of people overturning barriers, climbing the walls (literally), smashing in doors and windows, crushing defenders in doors, rampaging through the halls as members of Congress flee the violent, angry mob, and chanting “Hang Mike Pence”. What’s your point?

[Dr. Ed 2]

90% of the window glass had been replaced with a blast-proof substitute (probably Lexan, although maybe something better).

I would not have known which of the 10% of the windows were even breakable -- would you? Hence how did they know which windows would break? Why has there not been an investigation into what was -- at best -- an incredibly serous security leak?!?

Because the FBI was trusted with that information....

How much of the violence was deliberately provoked by the police?

[Nelson]

You think prior knowledge is necessary? Non-Dr. Ed thinking doesn’t require conspiracy theories:

Rioter wants to gain entrance to locked building, so the approach a window and smash it. The window breaks. Rioter had no idea some windows (according to you, which is always suspect) might not break when smashed with a heavy object.

Look up Occam’s Razor. Learn.

[DDHarriman]

Nelson,

Just curious what your thoughts are on this J6 video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD-BjjHzTlg

[hobie]

A bunch of Trumpers laying siege? What's shocking about that?

[DDHarriman]

You see those DC policies abandoning a window that was broken by White earpiece wearing mystery man that was then pushing people through it and conclude that?

I dont think you watched it.

I cant wait to hear your opinion of the videos of the Capitol Police high fiving insurrectionists when they think no one is looking.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nelson, IF they swung at EVERY window, 90+% of the time, their baseball bats (or whatever) would have bounced back and hit them in the face. Did you see ANY of that happening?

Hence Occam's Razor says they knew which ones WOULD break.

[hobie]

I saw one MAGA nut pushing another MAGA nut from trying to get in through the window. An act of civility in a mob that seriously lacked it

[DDHarriman]

hobie, did you see immediately before that part you referenced? Where he coordinated with the Capitol Police for them to leave then pulled off some of the broken before attacking the patriot who was saying not to enter the building?

Im surprised you missed that crucial scene thats narrated and in slow motion so humans wouldn't miss it.

[Nelson]

“ Hence Occam's Razor says they knew which ones WOULD break.”

Occam’s razor says there is zero necessity of prior knowledge for a violent rioter to hit one of the breakable windows. Random chance is an adequate explanation.

And I sincerely doubt your premise is true, for that matter.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 previously put forth this nonsense and I rebutted it then.

But the upgraded windows had different frames: "The original wooden frames and glass were covered with a second metal frame containing bomb-resistant glass."
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-10-04/jan-6-rioters-exploited-little-known-capitol-weak-spots-a-handful-of-unreinforced-windows

But Occam's Razor could also point at the inside information passed on in tours given by Republican members of Congress:

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol released new surveillance footage on Wednesday showing GOP Rep. Barry Loudermilk leading a group of people on a tour of the Capitol complex the day before the attack, with some of the guests documenting locations like staircases, security checkpoints and hallways.

(Link to that article in my 2023 comment.)

[hobie]

↑ case in point, bloocow2.

[bernard11]

There are ample videos of citizens walking peacefully inside the velvet ropes, many even being guided by Capitol police on J6.

What a moronic thing to say.

There are ample videos of bank robbers walking peacefully into banks before they approach the tellers' cages and rob the bank. Is that some kind of excuse? "He was peaceful until he got violent."

You're a jackass.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Jed Clampett. Now that was a guy with a good head on his shoulders.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Burn, Loot, & Murder wasn't doing that?!?

And did the FBI chase them to the far ends of the earth?

If you have a scintilla of intellectual honesty, you will have to admit that that Biden Lied and People Died....

[hobie]

"you will have to admit that that Biden Lied and People Died...."

Were Biden president in 2020, I might agree with you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was January 6, 2021....

[Magister]

Biden wasn't yet president; preventing that was the objective of Trump's insurrection.

[hobie]

"It was January 6, 2021...."

OMG! You rubes have kept me in stitches all fucking day.

[DDHarriman]

The delusion of the three posters above me decrying political hate after TDS Extreme for the past ten years is just mind blowing. Ten years of murdering political opponents, lawfaring them, and burning down cities they now are decrying the political rhetoric.

lol wtf is going on... so far I've found that homo sapiens sapiens have:
- theory of mind
- inner monologue
- the ability to self-reflect
- grounded in observed reality and not messaging or dogma

Whatever human-like kind Democrats are don't seem to have those same abilities.

[Malika la Maize]

So you’re not a Homo sapiens? Neanderthal maybe?

[DDHarriman]

*chirp* *chirp* *chiiiirrrrrrrpp*

I tried speaking CCP Bug for the first time. How'd I do?

[hobie]

Holy medication, Batman!

[Dr. Ed 2]

An interesting remembrance ob Florida 2000:
https://archive.is/8RFGS

[not guilty]

That reminds me, DDHarriman. Last week you posited that "There are four distinct species of humans alive today."

Among human primates, homo is the genus; sapiens, the species.

What are the other three species?

[DDHarriman]

I love how they turn all concern trolly when you nail them to their shitty beliefs.

"Oh I'm just concerned about you, my guy, no need to talk about all the terror and harm my beliefs cause everyone... go outside, touch grass... no one is trying to genocide you...."

[hobie]

"Oh I'm just concerned about you, my guy, no need to talk about all the terror and harm my beliefs cause everyone... go outside, touch grass... no one is trying to genocide you...."

No one wants to hear what your therapist told you.

[John 4]

Oh shut the fuck up, nerd.

[David Nieporent]

Address his point.

His point is stupid. It's not just similar to — but exactly the same as — showing the bodies of kids at a school shooting and then saying that anyone who doesn't want to make all firearms illegal support those deaths.

[Kazinski]

Then don't address it if its stupid.

I personally don't think prohibition works, so I somewhat agree with you.

What I think would work is strictly enforce laws for being intoxicated in public, and camping in public spaces. Then provide barracks like accommodations with strict rules on intoxicants, and if the violate the law give them 30 days of drug free jail time.

Just letting them live on the street like that is the type of cruelty that would get a dog owner arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated for several years.

[Commenter_XY]

The drug dealers who are importing these drugs that find their way to Kensington Ave are now identifying as shark shit in the waters off Venezuela, with a little assist from SecWar Hegseth.

POTUS Trump designated these drug dealers as members of a terror group via EO. Just like his predecessors. The difference is that POTUS Trump is taking the fight directly to the drug dealers themselves.

He can kill them all (drug dealing narco-terrorists), for all I care. Sharks need to be fed, too.

[Glaucomatose]

Please tell us how pardoning Juan Orlando Hernandez fits into this campaign. Because that seems like a pretty big difference with his predecessors, too.

[DDHarriman]

He was just another POC victim of White Supremacies. This is what Social Justice looks like.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's possible that this involves international diplomacy.

[Nelson]

“ The drug dealers who are importing these drugs that find their way to Kensington Ave are now identifying as shark shit”

So are innocent people who were, with little concern for accuracy, killed by the US. Plus the people clinging to wreckage, which anyone who has ever served can attest is legally and morally wrong. The fact that you cheer killing bad people without trial while handwaving away the killing of innocent people is deeply concerning.

“ POTUS Trump designated these drug dealers as members of a terror group via EO.”

So if the President says, with no supporting evidence, that something is something it isn’t you’re OK with that? And the fact that designating a group as a terrorist organization does not and has never changed the legality of indiscriminately killing people who may or may not be part of that group doesn’t bother you? You believe in the infallibility of the government and the irrelevance of the government following the law?

“ The difference is that POTUS Trump is taking the fight directly to the drug dealers themselves.”

Which isn’t part of what designating a group as a terrorist organization allows. At all. Even if Trump had done it in a legal fashion. Which he didn’t.

[Commenter_XY]

I reject your assertion = innocent people who were, with little concern for accuracy, killed by the US. Innocent, what a crock. You are either the dumbest soon to be dead narco-terrorist ever, or, a a very motivated narco-terrorist, to sail anything in the Western Hemisphere that even remotely looks like an attempt to smuggle drugs to the US. You'll be shark shit.

Take it up with Congress = So if the President says, with no supporting evidence, that something is something it isn’t you’re OK with that? Look, Art1 can check Art2; that is who (meaning Congress - Art1) must resolve the issue. Impeachment is the tool in the constitutional toolbox that Congress has to check Art2. Just get 67 Senators to agree.

[Sarcastr0]

Your evidence of guilt is just dehumanizing people and wrong place wrong time.

And, of course, gloating name-calling.

That Nazi shit might work in your own twisted mind, it doesn't really convince anyone else.

[not guilty]

"He can kill them all (drug dealing narco-terrorists), for all I care. Sharks need to be fed, too."

Commenter_XY, do you approve or disapprove of President Trump's pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández (who was convicted of three counts of drug trafficking and weapons conspiracy and sentenced to 45 years in prison)?

[Nelson]

“ Innocent, what a crock.”

Innocent until proven guilty, remember? And the Trump administration refuses to prove anything, probably because they can’t.

A “guilty until proven innocent” approach is how violent authoritarians think.

“ even remotely looks like an attempt to smuggle drugs to the US. You'll be shark shit.”

So even the appearance of potentially criminal behavior justifies murdering people? That’s an awfully loose standard for lethal attacks.

“ Take it up with Congress”

What, exactly, do you think needs to be taken up with Congress?

[bernard11]

The drug dealers who are importing these drugs that find their way to Kensington Ave are now identifying as shark shit in the waters off Venezuela, with a little assist from SecWar Hegseth.

Oh stop being an idiot. Trump just pardoned a guy who did more to help smuggle drugs into the US than probably all those boats combined.

But yeah. He's an absolute drug warrior. Do you have a brain?

[Malika la Maize]

“This is what the drug trafficker apologist progs”

He once boasted that he would “stuff the drugs up the gringos’ noses.” He accepted a $1 million bribe from El Chapo to allow cocaine shipments to pass through Honduras. A man was killed in prison to protect him.

At the federal trial of Juan Orlando Hernández in New York, testimony and evidence showed how the former president maintained Honduras as a bastion of the global drug trade. He orchestrated a vast trafficking conspiracy that prosecutors said raked in millions for cartels while keeping Honduras one of Central America’s poorest, most violent and most corrupt countries.

Last year, Mr. Hernández was convicted on drug trafficking and weapons charges and sentenced to 45 years in prison. It was one of the most sweeping drug-trafficking cases to come before a U.S. court since the trial of the Panamanian strongman Gen. Manuel Noriega three decades before.

But on Friday, President Trump announced that he would pardon Mr. Hernandez, 57

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/nyregion/honduras-hernandez-drug-trafficking.html

[Glaucomatose]

“But Hunter Biden”?
“But Marc Rich”?
“But he wasn’t a bad guy?”

I’m genuinely curious what the spin will be on this one. For now I don’t think they have instructions just yet.

[Malika la Maize]

It has to be tough to have a cult leader who constantly throws the narratives his followers create to defend him under the bus. I almost feel sorry for them.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm in the fortunate position of not actually liking Trump. When I call him the lesser evil, I do mean evil.

Regarding somebody as the lesser evil doesn't imply at all that you have to defend them...

[bernard11]

Yet you do defend him with great predictability.

Some questions, Brett.

1. What do you think of the pardon of Orlando Hernandez?

2. What do you think of the attack on two guys clinging to a burnt out boat?

[Brett Bellmore]

I defend him when the attacks are over the top, sure. Like, "Hey, let's take seriously an allegation that he committed a crime 20 years ago, and the victim just didn't see any point in mentioning it until now." Or, "Let's treat labeling payments to a lawyer for obtaining an NDA as 'legal expenses' as fraudulent."

"1. What do you think of the pardon of Orlando Hernandez?"

Scum of the earth. Wouldn't have pardoned him, myself. OTOH, I wouldn't have prosecuted him, either, because he wasn't committing crimes anywhere the US properly had jurisdiction. And because the war on drugs is BS.

"2. What do you think of the attack on two guys clinging to a burnt out boat?"

Again, I wouldn't have issued that order. I don't have a lot of sympathy for narcotics dealers or smugglers, but I think the war on drugs is unconstitutional, and bad policy besides.

But I thought launching Hellfire missiles at wedding celebrations was both, too. Or blowing up foreign pharmaceutical plants. So far I'm not seeing a relevant difference between Trump's actions here and what previous Presidents gotten a pass for.

As I said, I don't think Trump isn't evil, I think he's the lesser evil, and not nearly as lesser as I'd hoped.

[DDHarriman]

Found some Federal Prosecutors the Left trusts...

lmao make up your minds

[Glaucomatose]

Yes, I trust a conviction by a federal jury after a full trial led by career prosecutors; I am less inclined to trust the unsupported assertions of an insurance lawyer who repeatedly contradicts her own sworn statements. Is this hard for you to follow?

[John 4]

They won’t address this of course. Trump is constantly doing things that undermines the logic of his cultists. It must be internally maddening to them.

[AmosArch]

Look over here! This one guy was involved with drugs, therefore all drug traffickers should be let off the hook and allowed to continue bringing drugs in completely unmolested! Like I said you will sink to any depth to help continue the status quo.

[DDHarriman]

Look how mad they are at this but not at the thousands of murderers and criminals Democrat judges let out on our streets every year.

[AmosArch]

Obama used his position as President to bail out murderers including a guy who said he killed his first victim to see if he could get away with it and killed his second one for fun. (Unlike the Orlando case. You can't even argue there is a meaningful political or strategic angle for this one) Therefore we should legalize all homicide!
Malika Glaucomatose

[Malika la Maize]

This is whatabout hand waving away from the point of Trump’s contradictory, “drug dealer apologist” pardon, but I would also like a cite for this:

including a guy who said he killed his first victim to see if he could get away with it and killed his second one for fun

[DDHarriman]

No matter the source, you will dismiss it.

No one is going to waste their time on some lazy ccp bug.

[Malika la Maize]

So there isn’t one, got it.

[Glaucomatose]

There is a guy who was sentenced to death for murder, but Obama commuted his sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Which is totally the same thing as a guy who was sentenced to 45 years in prison (so, effectively life in prison) for leading an international conspiracy to smuggle drugs into the United States, but is now being pardoned and sent back to run for office in the country that he previously led as a narcostate.

[AmosArch]

You are ones coming out with the whataboutism because the consistency or lack of consistency of of trump has no effect on whether I was right or not on what I was speaking about.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but I would also like a cite for this:including a guy who said he killed his first victim to see if he could get away with it and killed his second one for fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sure here you go

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_J._Loving

[Glaucomatose]

If Obama bailed him out, why is he serving life in prison without the possibility of parole?

Do you understand what "bail out" means?

[David Nieporent]

Obama used his position as President to bail out murderers including a guy who said he killed his first victim to see if he could get away with it and killed his second one for fun.

I don't think Obama ever bailed out anyone while he was president. Why would a murderer even be offered bail? What are you talking about?

[Brett Bellmore]

Unclear about the colloquial meaning of "bail out"?

Obama commutes death sentence for ex-soldier from Texas

[Mr. Bumble]

I love it when David Notsoimportant plays dumb. He's so convincing.

[David Nieporent]

I am entirely clear on the colloquial meaning of "bail out." Commuting a death sentence to life in prison does not fit within any technical or colloquial definition of "bail out."

[Malika la Maize]

Summary executions for low level dealers, pardons for the bosses! Lol

[John 4]

“Narcotics are so destructive we need to blow this boat up off the coast of Trinidad” and “pardoning one of the most prolific traffickers of narcotics into our country” seem hard to reconcile.

I know your type is slow on the uptake so let me know if you need further clarification.

[Glaucomatose]

"This one guy" was literally the head of a narco state, and Trump is making an international show of pardoning him. Why? Why is Trump murdering scores of people without even charging them with suspicion of being low-level drug runners, but celebrating letting the head of a government-wide conspiracy to traffic drugs into the United States off the hook?

[Bob from Ohio]

"head of a government-wide conspiracy"

Trump just does not think a President should be in prison. Thanks Wiliis, Smith and Bragg!

[Glaucomatose]

This is at least as bad a rejoinder as DDHarriman's, I'll give you that.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not a "rational", its my take on why he didn't care about what the Honduras guy did.

[David Nieporent]

This is at least as bad a rejoinder as DDHarriman's, I'll give you that.

To the contrary, I think Bob's speculation may actually be accurate. Trump does not believe in accountability for executives, especially national ones. It would explain many of his decisions.

[hobie]

What ever quid Hernandez gave, I'm sure El Chapo is taking notes.

[Nelson]

“ This is what the drug trafficker apologist progs, including some on this very site, are fighting for.”

What tired, strawman bullshit. If someone wants to take drugs, they should be allowed to. That’s freedom. If they destroy their own life, that’s on them. No one else.

Between the socialism of state-owned businesses and the “we’re forcing you to do it for your own good” nanny state, the distinction between MAGA and the hard left are becoming vanishingly small.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That’s freedom"

A pretty sad thing freedom is then.

We have ordered liberty here.

[Nelson]

Ordered liberty is about what happens when the rights of others are violated and the level of response necessary to maintain order in society. Which is great, but when coming into conflict with the right for someone to do to their body what they choose, it’s a 100% loser.

While you and I may not like that people choose to destroy their lives with drugs, it isn’t our decision. That’s nanny state. Trusting the government to decide what’s good or bad for you is a terrible idea.

And if you’d like to get into the pros and cons of creating a black market for drugs by making them illegal, we can do that.

[wvattorney13]

Prosecuting illegal drugs is not "MAGA." That has been the policy of every administration for over 100 years.

Your strict libertarianism is good for a slogan but does not bear a relationship with real life. It assumes that people are islands unto themselves. Drug use doesn't just wreck a person's life and leave others alone. It causes massive societal problems in lost productivity, addiction, broken families, health care, crime, and public welfare costs.

Further, the insidious nature of it robs people of the very choice that you proclaim to be offering. After addiction they lack this and other meaningful choices.

And counter that with any purported benefits. They are that some people can temporarily fool themselves into escaping their own reality for a brief period of time instead of dealing with their issues.

That, to me, is not a wise trade off. There is no legitimate reason to allow legalized drug use. The personal freedom aspect is vastly overstated and is contradictory to how we handle almost everything else in society. It represents a slavish devotion to a philosophy and misleads on its own.

[not guilty]

"Prosecuting illegal drugs is not "MAGA." That has been the policy of every administration for over 100 years."

Prosecuting drug traffickers is one thing; summarily executing suspected traffickers in international waters is something else entirely.

As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other.

[Nelson]

“ Prosecuting illegal drugs is not "MAGA."”

But murdering people who may or may not be drug traffickers, under a fabricated definition of war, is. And my point was broader than that, since the line between MAGA and socialism is becoming very, very blurry.

“ Drug use doesn't just wreck a person's life and leave others alone. It causes massive societal problems in lost productivity, addiction, broken families, health care, crime, and public welfare costs.”

So does alcoholism. Drunk, abusive men are ubiquitous. Are you in favor of bringing back Prohibition? Because there isn’t a difference between alcohol and other drugs. They are all intoxicants that alter your mental state. Yet the vast majority of people who consume alcohol are responsible, productive citizens.

Your condemnation of drug use requires everyone to ignore people who take drugs and function perfectly well in society. It is a false and dishonest argument because you want the junkies to be the ONLY drug users that are acknowledged. That’s just not true.

“ Further, the insidious nature of it robs people of the very choice that you proclaim to be offering. After addiction they lack this and other meaningful choices.”

Like I said, nanny state. “If you’d do this is might, possibly, in a minority of cases, lead to addiction which, for a sizable percentage of that small percentage, makes recovery very difficult.”. That’s not only dishonest framing, it’s “what if” logic that can be used to justify almost anything. Slippery slope arguments are bad arguments.

“ And counter that with any purported benefits.”

Ah, I see. You not only want to dishonestly frame “people who use drugs” as the tiny percentage who become junkies, you want to frame “purported benefits” as escapism and nothing else. The vast majority of people who take drugs do it because it is a pleasurable experience. Whether alcohol, marijuana, or something else, drugs are largely a pleasure experience.

Are you really going to try to defend getting drunk with friends as “ escaping their own reality for a brief period of time instead of dealing with their issues.”? Because that is indefensible.

“ That, to me, is not a wise trade off.”

Then don’t do it. But your opinion about what someone else should do isn’t relevant. Nanny state is your moral hubris imposed on people who don’t want or need your input. You are advocating for a nanny state. It’s a terrible idea.

“ There is no legitimate reason to allow legalized drug use.”

According to you. We tried Prohibition once, based on exactly the same arguments you are making now.

People have the right to get drunk or stoned. Millions of people do it every day and the vast majority of them have no problems whatsoever. Your demonization of people who use drugs is a distorted falsity.

“ The personal freedom aspect is vastly overstated and is contradictory to how we handle almost everything else in society.”

Individual liberty and rights should be subordinate to “the good (as defined by the government) of society”? That is literally a fascist argument.

“ It represents a slavish devotion to a philosophy and misleads on its own.”

Nonsense. It is a foundational principle, one on which our country was founded. Rights belong to the people and the government cannot infringe those rights without presenting significant, even overwhelming, evidence that infringing those rights is necessary. “This small minority of people who use drugs end up as junkies” isn’t even a weak argument, never mind a significant or overwhelming one.

[CountmontyC]

Would you accept a ban on government assistance for those whose drug addiction prevents them from supporting themselves? No SNAP, no welfare, no housing etcetera?
If they have the freedom to do drugs they can face the consequences and responsibilities of exercising that freedom.

[Nelson]

“ Would you accept a ban on government assistance for those whose drug addiction prevents them from supporting themselves?”

Define “drug addiction”. Is it daily use? My position is that if you can meet the requirements of a program, it is irrelevant whether or not you take drugs. It’s exactly like a work environment. If the guy on your team who takes a bump of coke every now and again gets his work done the same as the guy who doesn’t, why should there be an artificial distinction between the two?

I support general requirements for all people under a program. What someone does in their free time is their business.

Remember that welfare has work requirements. If someone is so addicted they can’t function, they already aren’t meeting the requirements and aren’t eligible for welfare.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements

“ If they have the freedom to do drugs they can face the consequences and responsibilities of exercising that freedom.”

Agreed. But only of they actually fail to meet requirements, not merely because they use drugs (including alcohol). “They use drugs” isn’t a valid reason to disqualify someone who is otherwise a functional member of society.

[Bored Lawyer]

"If they destroy their own life, that’s on them. No one else."

LOL. When they destroy their lives, the taxpayer will be required to pay for the cleanup and lifetime support. When we get rid of that part of the nanny state, then we can come back to this theory.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, there's the problem with the welfare state: The only way people are permitted to make their own choices, in the long run, is if they're required to bear the consequences of those choices themselves.

Force anybody else to spare them the consequences, and as night follows day, they'll be 'spared' the choice, too, sooner or later.

[Sarcastr0]

The number of supposedly small government advocates who after all this time are still all in on the war on drugs is depressing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

For centuries China had an Opium problem. China doesn't have one now.

We may not like the way they did it, but we have to admit that the ChiComs solved China's Opium problem...

[hobie]

One titanic police/surveillance state did the trick. You hillbillies will have to lower your intolerance for the gubmint knowin' your business to achieve the utopia

[Frank Drackman]

So Jerry, who you like in the Big-10 (which has like 21 teams) Championship??
I mean which team.

Frank

[hobie]

I'd say Ohio State is the complete package this year. No doubt about it. But my loyalty is to Texas Tech. Coach Mike Leach took the Greatest Show on Turf philosophy to heart (plus enumerable trick plays on top of all that) that makes the most thrilling football to this very day. So I only root for them.

But I must say...what the fuck is up with Indiana?!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Porch piracy -- stealing packages off people's porches -- is a problem.

What would be the legal consequences of rigging one with a dye pack (similar to bank money) to cover thief and thief's vehicle with brightly colored ink so as to identify both to police?

My first thought was liability to the innocent neighbor looking for his own misdirected package who innocently picks it up to check the label (and lots of packages get delivered to the wrong address).

But would an actual thief be able to sue for damages? What about injuries to eyes or a car crash caused by the exploding ink (e.g. distraction, obstructed vision)? How about the innocent third party run over by said MV?

Why do I suspect that a homeowner doing this exposes himself to at least extensive civil if not criminal liability.

[Commenter_XY]

You mean, like these people?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-acouLElSBI

Enjoy. Some vignettes are hilarious.

[ThePublius]

I think most of the youtube porch pirate videos are staged. I've watched too many of them, I confess, but they all lately seem to follow one or two or three 'scripts,' and the thiefs' reactions are becoming ridiculously outrageous; overacting.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure you're right.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. The odds of correctly predicting where a package is going to be stolen have to be pretty small.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I already concluded that -- hence I asked my question as a hypothetical.

The giveaway-- the sound quality.

[Armchair]

My understanding is that the law regarding porch pirates is roughly the same as that regarding home protection (when one isn't in the house...that's different).

In short, non-lethal methods are acceptable, as per standard home defense mechanisms. But lethal methods are illegal. If a non-lethal method resulted in a death, the homeowner wouldn't be held liable.

To give an example, if someone breaks into your house, an loud alarm could go off. If that alarm startles the invader and they trip and fall, that lawsuit would fail. On the other hand, if someone breaks into your house, and that triggers a deliberate explosion, that would be considered lethal force, and be illegal.

[John F. Carr]

I wonder about the legality of bank dye packs. According to the internet some of them contain tear gas. Hitting somebody with tear gas or dye would ordinarily be assault.

Sometimes an innocent person is given money with a dye pack.

[David Nieporent]

Wikipedia mentions tear gas in some dye packs, but cites no references. I do not believe that to be true. Tear gas is not available to the public in the first place.

[ThePublius]

"Tear gas is not available to the public in the first place."

I don't think that's so.

Search "tear gas" on google and click "shopping."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't "tear gas" largely obsolete? Even the cops now use OC (pepper spray) as more effective.

[Commenter_XY]

Auburn losing to Alabama in a heartbreaker (once again).

Sorry Frank. 😉

[Frank Drackman]

Thats what we do.

Frank "Wail till next Millenium!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

What we really should be doing is stopping the gp fast boats, tossing all of their drugs overboard, and then wishing them a good day.

They're going to have explaining to do when they don't show up with the drugs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ter7pAZF_nY

The '80s, when women could be good locking...

[hobie]

Since we appear to know the identities and cargo of all transports, we could make a killing at the Mexico border.

[John F. Carr]

That is a better solution than blowing them up. The crew might then ask for asylum. Maybe unsuccessfully. I think being on the hit list of a drug cartel is not grounds for asylum.

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t question Dear Leader!

Q: Officials say the suspect in the DC shooting was vetted & it came up clean

TRUMP: He went cuckoo. He went nuts. There was no vetting

Q: Actually, your DOJ IG says there was thorough vetting of Afghans. So why blame Biden?

TRUMP: You're just asking questions because you're a stupid person

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3m6nnmy5kzv2q?ref_src=embed&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com%252F2025%252F11%252Faccess-and-solidarity

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The press needs to honor their own a tad bit more.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/11/access-and-solidarity

[Mr. Bumble]

Another perspective:
""Why do you blame the Biden Admin?"/"Because they let them in. Are you stupid? Are you a stupid person? And you're just asking questions because you're a stupid person!"

Presented for your contemplation, not to indicate my approval (or disapproval!).

***

I'm giving this my "civility bullshit" tag because the topic of "civility bullshit" is in play. That is, Trump doesn't fall for civility bullshit. You can't persuade him to be civil because he (correctly) observes that the other side will not be civil toward him and he will not unilaterally disarm. I think his incivility invariably — or almost invariably — comes only after someone has shown incivility toward him. "
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2025/11/are-you-stupid-are-you-stupid-person.html

[Malika la Maize]

So he’s being preemptively uncivil? There was nothing uncivil in that question.

There’s a term for that, rhymes with Sasshole.

Also, his comments are a bit goofy, he *went* crazy so there was no *past* vetting.

[DDHarriman]

It's the Paradox of Incivility. In order to combat incivility, one must be uncivil.

[Malika la Maize]

Sounds like your kind of fascist reasoning.

[DDHarriman]

lol share with us all again how the Fascist Manifesto is a bastion of Rightwing thought.... with all it's collectivism and class based rhetoric...

lol stupid bugs

[Malika la Maize]

White supremacist decries collectivism, you’re a riot!

[Frank Drackman]

And you're a Stupid Person, a very very Stupid Person.

[Malika la Maize]

Learn basic English and then get back to me.

[Mr. Bumble]

So Ann Althouse is a fascist too?

[Malika la Maize]

Her logic here is similar to fascist logic, see my comments on extremists above (especially point 2).

[Mr. Bumble]

Like "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"?

[Malika la Maize]

Metaphors, how do they work?

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm not sure that is a metaphor.

[Sarcastr0]

Taking metaphors as literal and literal orders as metaphors is the go to MAGA apologetic tactic these days.

It’s taking insisting Dems are violent to create evidence Dems are violent.

Accusations need to get all the more extreme to justify the more and more indefensible moves by the regime.

[hobie]

I know, right?!

Stop stealing elections (steals election)
Stop pedophiles (is a pedophile)
Stop fascism (engages in fascism)
Stop them niggers from violent rioting (engages in violent rioting)

[ThePublius]

You're so full of shit.

If he had stolen an election, there would have been no President Biden.

He's not a pedophile (let's see the evidence that he is).

He has not engaged in fascism; in fact, quite the opposite.

He hasn't engaged in violent rioting. At all. (And give me the evidence of him calling people niggers).

[hobie]

Well, to be fair, most MAGA engages in soft racism (ala Charlie Kirk). But 'nigger' is implied.

[Glaucomatose]

"No, no - he just unsuccessfully tried to steal an election! See, what's the problem?"

[Bob from Ohio]

"thorough vetting"

Apparently not!

[David Nieporent]

That is not in fact apparent. You understand that Minority Report is science fiction, right?

[Kazinski]

So perhaps the lesson to take is there is no level of vetting that is adequate for military age Afghan men.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“The Committee is aware of recent news reports—and the Department of Defense’s initial response—regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” Wicker said in a statement with U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. “The Committee has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”

I welcome Congress doing its job.

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/wicker-directs-inquiry-into-hegseths-reported-kill-them-all-order-vowing-vigorous-oversight-of-boat-strikes/

[Mr. Bumble]

"I welcome Congress doing its job."
Like passing necessary spending bills rather than continuing resolutions?
Seems the recent shutdown is just a distant memory.

[DDHarriman]

The Democrats had to make as many people suffer as possible for that upcoming election. That's part of their schtick. Impose mass suffering and misery so people will beg them for relief.

[Malika la Maize]

“rather than continuing resolutions”

lol, can’t read, reason or both?

[DDHarriman]

*chirp* **chirp**

---

Seems the recent shutdown is just a distant memory.

The Democrats had to make as many people suffer as possible for that upcoming election.

---
*chiiirrrirp* **chirp** *chirp chirp*

[Malika la Maize]

Bumble’s comment was critical of Congress passing CRs instead of spending bills, Lex goes on rant about not passing a CR. Not very bright. How come so many white supremacists have such inferior intellects?

[DDHarriman]

I referenced a portion of his comment and added some social commentary.

Does your kind not do that? Maybe it's just a thing for us Humans.

[Malika la Maize]

You clearly failed to understand the comment, but I get that happens to you a lot.

[DDHarriman]

I didn't understand the words "recent shutdown" when I referenced the Democrats strategy for the "recent shutdown"?

Making a direct reference the concept strongly suggests I did understand it.

maybe it's different in bug cognition? Do you need different symbolic signals to understand how concepts connect?

[Malika la Maize]

You didn’t understand “Like passing necessary spending bills rather than continuing resolutions?”

[DDHarriman]

I did but didn't feel like commenting on it. I felt like pointing out how vile and evil Democrats when it comes to them clinging to power and the topic gave me the opportunity to remind everyone just how disgusting being a Democrat is.

Wtf. Are bugs not free to riff and extend conversations? Is all your though controlled by the Narrative Hive Mind and you're never free to take part of the Narrative and riff of it to make a related point?

wow, being a bug must suck

[Malika la Maize]

Oh, it was a pathetic partisan thread jack. Good for you!

[DDHarriman]

It took you an hour and several explanations before you figured out how my related comment was related to the comments... something that is immediately obvious to homo sapien sapiens.

I sure hope the CCP didn't put their best and brightest bugs forward. If so, that's f'n hilarious.

[Malika la Maize]

So, you don’t know what a thread jack is too? Again, stick to your bug thing.

[hobie]

I wonder if 'Dems are not even human' is the next MAGA tack? They pretty much ran out of superlatives with the pedo fail.

[DDHarriman]

Nope, just looking for explanations for Democrat behavior. It's a homo sapien sapien trait (at least for the pureblood ones) to ponder, to philosophize, to think, to look for explanations. Humans have been doing this since, well, forever.

It's part of the human experience. What's your experience like?

[Mr. Bumble]

Inbreeding?

[Malika la Maize]

Nah, incels like Lex don’t breed.

[Riva]

Will the WP’s anonymous telepaths with knowledge of Sec. Hegseth’s thinking show up for hearings? I bet they turn out to be the fat Vindman brothers.

[Bob from Ohio]

"fat Vindman brothers"

One of them just threatened the military with trials if and when Democrats get the presidency.

[John F. Carr]

It's a start. Trump still has more than one third of the Senate behind him so it's only a start.

[Malika la Maize]

On November 10, the Supreme Court declined to disturb Congress' plenary power over Tribes by denying certiorari in Veneno v. US. The denial prompted a stinging dissent by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas, which condemned Congress' plenary power as "a theory that should make this Court blush." 

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2025/11/the-courts-blush-undoing-plenary-power.html?m=1

[Mr. Bumble]

Doesn't being the Supreme Court mean never having to say your sorry (or wrong)?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it should. In original principle the Indian tribes are foreign sovereigns whose sovereign territory just happens to be surrounded by our own. Congress no more has plenary power over the Cherokee than it does over the French, constitutionally speaking.

Well, the honest truth is that we conquered them, and then didn't have the decency to fully integrate them into our own polity, because our government didn't mean to extend them full rights of citizenship.

And then we by statute declared them all citizens whether or not they wanted to be, but kept up the pretense anyway that they were separate sovereigns.

So they get this stupid status, not fish, not fowl, where we pretend to make treaties with them like they were not Americans, and then break the treaties whenever we feel like it.

It's a total embarrassing mess.

[Bwaaah]

Our laws and institutions are really good at fixing "peoples", aren't they? There's nothing like good intentions when you're trying to be successful in helping peoples. (You can't do it without a good dose of stereotyping to seal the deal.)

GoooooOOOOO NATIVE AMERICANS!!!

[hobie]

Well said, Brett.

[David Nieporent]

Well, it should. In original principle the Indian tribes are foreign sovereigns whose sovereign territory just happens to be surrounded by our own. Congress no more has plenary power over the Cherokee than it does over the French, constitutionally speaking.

That is not in fact the original principle. I know it appeals to you because it's so simplistic, but it's wrong. Indians are a separate category, not like the French. That's why the constitution identifies the former specifically, and in one spot gives the power to Congress to regulate commerce with foreign Nations and with Indian Tribes. Because they were deemed at the time to be different.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Justice Thomas has gone his own way regarding such matters, though it is a bit curious that he joined without comment some of Gorsuch's rhetoric. I think his joining reflected his support for the Supreme Court examining the question.

The sympathetic blog post noted, "Future counsel seeking to overturn Kagama should learn from this miss and lean more heavily into historical arguments." IOW, the case might have been a bad vehicle, at least how it was argued.

OTOH, clearing centuries of brush regarding congressional regulation of Native Americans would be difficult overall.

[hobie]

Gorsuch's affection for Native Americans is odd.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's not too odd. It doesn't clash with his basic personality and views. It is a notable, idiosyncratic quality (regarding how far he takes it), but not too surprising unless people have a simplistic view of a conservative/libertarian "type."

He was on the court of appeals in the West, and Westerners often have more sympathy for Native Americans. Respect for NAs fits into his anti-federal bureaucracy/power mindset.

He also sees them as a basic victim of the federal government and states violating basic principles, including the original understanding and treaty promises.

Gorsuch has a purist streak that also fits well here.

[DDHarriman]

I wonder why the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was necessary when any person could just come over our border, be born and be a citizen? Any Indian who wanted citizenship could just be born one inch outside the reservation, no?

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States:

Weird language for what the 14th Amendment already allegedly does.

[John 4]

Any idea why it says “non citizen Indians,” hillbilly boy?

[DDHarriman]

Yes I have an idea what "non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States" could mean.

The 14th Amendment didn't cover the case where non-citizens were born inside territorial limits of the United States so Congress passed a law singling out Indians as being the lone class of non-citizens who are born inside the US that are granted citizenship.

Seems reasonable, no?

[John 4]

…because they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Basic stuff.

Edit: Way to completely edit your comment. Did you realize how dumb a question you asked? Lol

[DDHarriman]

So a non-citizen Indian born inside our borders is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but all other non-citizens born inside our borders are.

Makes sense... if you're a Democrat.

[John 4]

“So a non-citizen Indian born inside our borders is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but all other non-citizens born inside our borders are.”

Yes, that is a correct statement.

[DDHarriman]

Is a non-citizen Mexican born inside our borders also not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Like the non-citizen Indian?

[Malika la Maize]

No, it was understood that Native Americans had a special status that was different than that.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/no--native-american-citizenship-does-not-support-limits-on-birthright-citizenship

[DDHarriman]

So you think literally every non-citizen from everywhere in the world born in the US becomes a citizen EXCEPT Native Americans... and they need a special law to do so?

What the heck? Are Democrats really this fucking stupid?

[Malika la Maize]

If you can’t read the linked source maybe you can get AI to give you a 3rd grade level summary?

[DDHarriman]

Lawfare blog? I clicked it and got a virus warning.

Readers beware.

[Nelson]

“ So you think literally every non-citizen from everywhere in the world born in the US becomes a citizen EXCEPT Native Americans... and they need a special law to do so?”

Yes. Perhaps living in a different country makes you ignorant if the status of Native Americans, but because of the treaties signed between the US government and the various tribes, Indians in reservations were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, however once they left the reservation they were. That distinction has since been eliminated.

It really isn’t that hard to grasp.

[DDHarriman]

Can you show me the language in the 14th Amendment that excludes Native Americans? I can't find it.

Your argument makes sense if the 14th Amendment excluded Native Americans. But I can't find that language.

[Glaucomatose]

You forgot the "IANAL" tag. It would be helpful to identify to others here that you have no idea how the Fourteenth Amendment works.

[John 4]

"Can you show me the language in the 14th Amendment that excludes Native Americans? I can't find it."

You can't even follow this short thread that's almost solely about this question. It's the first sentence of the amendment.

[Josh R]

Can you show me the language in the 14th Amendment that excludes Native Americans? I can't find it.

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Indians who were by treaty not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (could not be held accountable in US courts) for conduct on reservations (which are part of the US) were not 14th Amendment citizens. In contrast all other non-citizens are subject to the jurisdiction throughout the US.

[Nelson]

“ Can you show me the language in the 14th Amendment that excludes Native Americans? I can't find it.”

Because you can’t read?

“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof …”

By treaty, Indians on reservations were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Today, reservations are subject to federal law, so that distinction no longer exists.

The legal realities of Indians on reservations is different than the legal realities everywhere else in America because of their limited sovereign status and treaty obligations of the United States.

[Malika la Maize]

The Amendment that said citizenship is conferred to those born in the territorial US didn’t cover the case where non-citizens were born inside territorial limits of the United States?

You should go back to bug language, lol.

[DDHarriman]

Read closer, you're take is wrong and retarded. Typical bug behavior I guess.

Let me simplify this for bugs:

Long time ago leadership humans make special rule say "non-citizen Indian human born here, become citizen"

Current human-like creatures say "all non-citizen human born here, become citizen" from some other rule older than humans special rule that is already there.

If current creature say truth, why long ago human need special rule?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s your argument, though yes it’s pretty stupid.

[DDHarriman]

As is typical, Queenie doesn't address the point.

Pls next post something you would like actual engagement with or request a link and watch the silence... the deafening silence... with just a lone little sad *chirp* as the bug sits all alone.

[Malika la Maize]

What is the argument in “The 14th Amendment (which says all persons born in the territorial US are citizens) didn't cover the case where non-citizens were born inside territorial limits of the United States?” It’s gibberish. Bug language indeed.

[DDHarriman]

Scroll up you bug. It's all right there in Humanese.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s true, as you put it it’s more like a gibbon typed it out. “Persons coming to be born here” lol.

[Brett Bellmore]

The same 14th amendment that said, "excluding Indians not taxed".

The missing piece of the puzzle here is that the Indian territories might have been "in" the United States, in the sense of being inside our borders, but they were not "part of" the United states, they were little pockets of foreign sovereigns. So, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," did not include the Indians residing in Indian territories. The people living there were subject to a different jurisdiction.

The catch is that, if an Indian family who resided in a reservation happened to be off the reservation at the moment their child was born, the child didn't get citizenship, because their parents were not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

This was the only significant class of people in that situation.

I think it would be reasonable for 14th amendment birthright citizenship, to use the parents' legal residence, not their incidental physical locations. The argument would be that illegal aliens and tourists do not reside in the US for legal purposes, they're just passing through, like the Indians who happened to have stepped off the reservation.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you have any evidence that catch has occurred or even was intended?

Or is it just what you think is reasonable, I,e, a policy argument.

[Mr. Bumble]

He's back.
All good things must pass.

[Malika la Maize]

“any person could just come over our border, be born and be a citizen”

Caravan of fetuses!

[Nelson]

“ when any person could just come over our border, be born and be a citizen?”

So before being born they could cross the border? Wanna explain how that works?

I’m sure the logic is as valid as the logic of Holocaust denial.

[Bunny495]

I went to college in the 1960s and no one can tell me anything about sex, drugs, and rock and roll. So this article was something of an eye opener. The Cliffs Notes version is selling products containing THC has become a big business and the products offered are far different than what was available back in the day. They are much stronger, more dangerous, and while were probably not a real Schedule 1 drug when they were classified as one, they probably are now. Maybe the biggest shock to me was more people are using THC products than alcohol, or maybe about the connection between mass shooters and THC use. Lots more claims that make me wonder about legalization efforts, not to mention the high priced lobbyist pushing increased legalization. This blurb from the article is telling.

"And it’s addictive, a truth that Americans are still reluctant to accept. Sabet recalls speaking to a large group about the addiction angle, only for a member of the audience to tell him during the Q&A portion: “I use it every day, Kevin, and I’m qualified to tell you it’s not addictive.” "

https://archive.is/DrvMY

[Frank Drackman]

But it's the only thing that works for my Glaucoma!!!

[DDHarriman]

It helps with my sleep. I'm stocking up while I still can. McConnell is such a dick, he inserted the language to pay off his tobacco pals.

[hobie]

I use an edible before bed each night. Excellent for sleep.

[John F. Carr]

The quasi-legal marijuana craze feels like a modern blend of snake oil and aromatherapy. It's not subject to typical drug and food regulation so anything goes. Once THC is approved for medical use the authorities will make sure that only Pfizer brand Weed is advertised for sale.

[Michael Ejercito]

That video which those senators made about disobeying illegal orders was immoral.

- It was prefaced with the statement that American trust in the military is at risk (it is not)
- It was prefaced with the claim that this administration is pitting the military and intelligence communities against the American people (it is not)
- these claims about the Trump administration were directed expressly toward the troops, in their capacity as troops. Thus, even if the criticisms were correct, they should have been made to the general public, not specifically to the troops.
- Upon questioning by Rachel Maddow, Mark Kelly could not specify which illegal orders were recently made, only saying, "You don't want to wait for your kid to get hit by a car before you tell them to look both ways"

[hobie]

Right now, at least one admiral is at serious risk of prosecution for war crimes and murder. He would have done well to heed Kelly's advice to avoid the predicament Trump and Hegseth put him in.

[Mr. Bumble]

Prosecution by whom, the ICC?

[hobie]

By the Feds in 2029 at the Neo Nuremburg trials. You boys are gonna recall fondly the crap you previously thought was lawfare.

[Mr. Bumble]

Under President Vance and Vice President Rubio?

[hobie]

Two problems with that scenario:

As hillbilly as our military is, they recognize the bravery and sacrifice of Ukraine. Even though Vance is a fellow billy, he's also Harvard/private equity brat. An armchair tough guy who slammed the Ukrainian people. Our soldiers are going to remember that.

As for Rubio. There's a reason why we cannot seem to elect a woman/gay/Jew president (Obama was a unicorn...I doubt we'll ever see that again). Obama was the cause of the rise of the neo-Confederacy that is MAGA. Now that you got all that power and can discriminate at will, the anti-brown inherent in the movement is going to surface

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie, Nuremburg was done by foreign victorious powers.

Your version would instantly create a shooting civil war...

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

A Trump apologist lecturing us on what is immoral. Hilarious.

[Josh R]

You have expressed your opinion. So did Congress members. The First Amendment protects all of you.

Even if you believe their actions were immoral, you should be outraged at Trump's claim they are seditious and she be locked up (or worse).

[John 4]

"- Upon questioning by Rachel Maddow, Mark Kelly could not specify which illegal orders were recently made, only saying, "You don't want to wait for your kid to get hit by a car before you tell them to look both ways"

And somehow Mr. Ejercito finds fault with such a statement and believes it implies "immorality". You can't make this stuff up.

[SRG2]

Upon questioning by Rachel Maddow, Mark Kelly could not specify which illegal orders were recently made, only saying, "You don't want to wait for your kid to get hit by a car before you tell them to look both ways"

A very reasonable position.

Meanwhile, if you disagree with those six Democrats, the opposition of "don't obey illegal orders" is "obey illegal orders".

And you are in favour of obeying illegal orders, obviously, as are all the other cultists who attacked the six.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" President Donald Trump says he wants to “permanently pause migration” from poorer nations and is promising to seek to expel millions of immigrants from the United States by revoking their legal status. He is blaming immigrants for problems from crime to housing shortages as part of “social dysfunction” in America and demanding “REVERSE MIGRATION.”

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!!

https://apnews.com/article/trump-national-guard-shooting-migration-17bc0655f4544cc702623574ed08eb62

[Glaucomatose]

I eagerly await the comments from conservatives claiming they're A-OK with legal immigration, they just can't stand all the law-breaking and so are opposed to illegal immigration, and it's terrible how liberals conflate the two.

[Josh R]

Trump tore the veneer off of the "we only oppose illegal immigration" argument. It's great for the xenophobic part of his base, but perhaps does not sit well with most people.

Also, Trump declared that the perpetrator was here unlawfully even though his administration granted him asylum. That's an impressive feat of mental gymnastics in order to maintain the "we only impose illegal immigration" argument.

[Roger S]

Only extremists like Somin favor unrestricted legal immigration. So conservatives do favor limits on legal immigration. Almost no one says he is A-OK with all legal immigration.

[hobie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

Looks like, apart from Afghanistan, all other third world countries are obscure and neegro-filled.

Subsaharan immigrants account for 4% of US immigrants with most of them coming from first world countries Nigeria, South Africa and Kenya.

So maybe a few thousand would fit the bill...maybe.

43% of all immigrants are from Asia.

Organized crime in America is still largely run by Italian and Russian immigrants.

So to paraphrase Charlie Kirk: we seem to have a neegro problem...not an immigrant problem.

[Josh R]

As of now, there are 12 countries (Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, The Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya Somalia, Sudan, Yemen) on a travel ban list and another 7 (Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela) with restricted access.

[hobie]

I'll concede that the most violent people seem to come from the Middle East (Muslim, with Israel also getting a nod because of all the genocide and summary executions). But with all the Crypto-pro-quo (I just coined that term! What do you think?) we're transferring nuclear technology to them instead of crushing them.

[tens years ago, a lot I just said above would be unthinkable]

[Dr. Ed 2]

"first world countries Nigeria, South Africa and Kenya."

The people arriving aren't first world.

[hobie]

By definition, they are first world...just like Slovenia.

[SRG2]

According to Dr Ed's definition, only whites can be first world

[BrotherMovesOn]

Dr. Ed lives in a third world state.
Great for weekends though!

[David Nieporent]

"Permanently pause" is of course typical Trumpian gibberish.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Haha, ain't it though? Plastic silverware.

[Krayt]

Going down my YouTube shorts scroll wall this morning. It's the usual, science by various cuties including Neil deGrasse Tyson, Christopher Hitchens ripping religion with a savagery unmatched since the last decade of Mark Twain's life, and the occasional Bill Mahr, but only if some idiot hasn't wrapped it with "watch as Bill annihilates Democrats!"

Anyway, some other overt political things from time to time. I usually quick scroll down, hoping their AI system gets a clue and stops feeding me it. Today I stopped briefly on one.

Some guy is educating me on "What Trump's Tariffs are really about", he's going into how the Swiss left a pile of gold on his desk and got some tariff points knocked off. Fair enough.

He says the tarriffs hurt foreign businesses and raise costs for Americans. Well, sure, but for 80 years you were down with that!

It was a Democratic thing to disallow mass importation of workers because it undercut union wages. It was a Democratic thing to be opposed to wholesale offshoring of manufacturing because it undercut good manufacturing jobs, including union jobs.

The Republicans wanted all that because it undercut blue collar union jobs and votes and money going to Democrats from it. Today, Democrats wonder aloud who will do all these jobs, so import them!

And here we sit, Democrats and Republicans completely flopped on their Eternal Trvths on this subject.

Young man, you'll pardon me if I cannot take your ernest sincerity as anything but marching orders from your betters, who inform you what you think, what to feel is vitally important, and what shall give you a warm and fuzzy you're a good person, while they get the power.

[Josh R]

I suspect most Republicans oppose tariffs. They can't say so (for now) because Trump will open a can of whoop ass on them.

Democrats have been split on this issue at least as far back as NAFTA.

[SRG2]

I suspect most Republicans oppose tariffs.

I suspect that many Republicans had no particular views on tariffs other than a dim recollection that the party they support was generally against them for reasons they themselves could not articulate, but now that someone has come along who they follow devotedly and told them what to think about tariffs, they're in favour.

If you venture to the cesspool that is the main Reason comments section - compared to which this is a fresh and limpid stream, you will find that almost every last Republican and "conservative" supports tariffs because that's what Dear Leader says.

[BrotherMovesOn]

But it's "the most beautiful word ...Tariffs."

[hobie]

I blame all this on America's Hillbilly class. For a hundred years the Democrat machine made sure that every ignorant redneck got $50/hour for pulling a lever. Think of it as hillbilly welfare for whites who don't like to work too hard. Naturally that killed American manufacturing. Now that they're all broke and bitter, and it's the Mexicans that are working their asses off, they blame Dems and neegroes and the selfsame Mexicans for their own profligacy

[J_A_H]

Unemployable morons used to vote D. Now they vote R. Go team Trump!

[Armchair]

It's important to understand...the parties have switched who they actually represent.

The current Democratic party represents the professional elites, the monied interests and so on. The GOP represents the working class.

[Sarcastr0]

Your party is headed by President Trump, who is funded and fetted by a bevy of billionaires.

An insider relationship with the President of the US, often via big donations, is the key to getting government benefits and pardons.

That’s not just elitism, it’s basically a throwback to the elitism on steroids that is a return of old style aristocracy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

FDR and the Kennedy Klan weren't?

[Sarcastr0]

I’m sure you got some weird examples, but no this admins level of open corruption is second to none in the modern era.

https://www.economist.com/business/2025/11/20/donald-trump-and-the-unseemly-rise-of-insider-capitalism

[Armchair]

So many things wrong with your statement in so many way. Let's start, just for fun.

1. "Your party"
--Technically speaking, I'm a registered Democrat.

2. "headed by President Trump:
--Technically speaking, if we were talking about the GOP, the chairperson of the party is Joe Gruters

3. "who is funded and fetted by a bevy of billionaires."
Both major parties are funded by billionaires. Implying just one is funded by billionaires is inaccurate.

4. "An insider relationship with the President of the US, often via big donations, is the key to getting government benefits and pardons."
-It's one way. We've seen it happen with many past presidents, of both parties.

5. "That’s not just elitism"
It's not elitism at all.

6. More to the point, we need to look at the large policy choices made by the parties, who votes for the party, and what they "really" stand for. In the large scheme of things, if Mark Rich or Roger Clinton get pardons, it looks sleezy...but it doesn't really affect the nation as a whole.

6a. The policy choices are interesting. Pro-tariff versus anti-tariff. Pro-tariff policies support local workers and manufacturers, at the expense of the "whole." Generally a "pro-labor" type policy. Or, if you support health care subsidies for a small selection of people making more than 4 times the poverty limit...that tends to be more for professional elites. Not the worker at the factory plant.

6b. If you're looking for who is voting for people, the following is instructive. Many of the richest districts tend to vote Democratic. Many of the middle class and working class districts....GOP. People vote for who represent their interests. The truth is in the vote.

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/12/house-democrats-winning-wealthier-districts-middle-class-gop

[Sarcastr0]

1. You're MAGA, don't play stupid games.
2. The party is headed by Trump, don't play stupid games.
3. Don't whattabout; the GOP can't pretend to not be elitist when the elites are right there.
4. Whattabouting again. And ignoring the cast difference in scale of this administration's corruption.
Trump has changed the open competition to one where the key is how well Trump likes you. Across markets from soy bean farmers to bitcoin to social media.
5. The GOP gives stuff to elites for being elite and kissing Trump's ass. No hint of merit; that's as elitist as it gets.
6. You gesture at policy choices, then back to whattaboutism. Fucking Roger Clinton? You're digging deep because you got nothing.
6a. You're 180 degrees wrong on both your examples.
Trump's tariffs create higher prices for goods. The rich can absorb that, the poor cannot. Do you think tariffs are a job creation policy? Read *anything* about tariff economics - even carefully laid out they do not create factory jobs. And the Trump tariffs are not carefully laid out.
Health care subsidies favor the poor, not the 'professional elites' who get their heathcare through their employer not the marketplace.
6b. Going from individuals to collectivist analysis? At this point I don't think you know what you mean by elites.

Come back with your definition of elites, with something other than a vibesey definition that wanders based on what you need it to be.

You've left social issue voters utterly out of your analysis. That alone is a huge fail.

[Armchair]

1) Am I? I've never voted for Trump. I'm a registered Democrat. The last political party I donated to was the Democrats. How am I "MAGA"?
2) Feel like we should go by actual definitions.
3) Misuse of "whatabouting"
4) Misuse of "whatabouting"
5) Use definitions accurately.
6a) Higher minimum wages also create higher costs for goods. What does that mean? It's not "just" higher costs but also higher wages, and who those wages go to. Although, I suppose if you want to argue that, then the higher minimum wages in CA are just a way to help the rich. That true?
6b) We're not just talking about health care subsidies in general, but health care subsidies for a particular class of people. Specifically those making more than 4 times the poverty wage. That's what the shutdown was about.
6c) I started on "collective analysis". "Elites" is plural. A class.

[SRG2]

The GOP represents the working class.

It represents the billionaire class and has persuaded the white working class that really it represents them as well.

[David Nieporent]

The GOP does not represent the working class. None of the GOP's policies are good for the working class. The GOP represents Trump.

[jPendleton]

I filed suit last week against X Corp. and Elon Musk in Bastrop County under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the First Amendment: https://drive.proton.me/urls/RGBJPXCMCM#NCUEmjiNFLxc

Legally, it's not that interesting, just garden variety censorship. What is interesting is that Musk, who I have no prior contacts with, seems to be covering for his old pal Peter Thiel and Palantir at the behest of the Trump Administration. Request for a TRO was filed on Friday so we'll see what the court makes of it.

[hobie]

Why the fuck in Bastrop county?

[jPendleton]

X Corp is headquartered in Bastrop County. Since I'm in Quebec, the alternative would have been Delaware where they're chartered. The DTPA was the decisive factor -- in Texas, saying one thing and doing another is illegal.

[Dr. Ed 2]

HOW did you get into Quebec without a passport?
And how can you bring a pro se suit in Texas without being there?

[jPendleton]

I took a train from DC to Boston, a bus to Burlington, and rode a bicycle to Montreal. A few days journey altogether.

Texas has eFile for everyone and I should be able to appear by video conference for "good cause." Tex. R. Civ. p. 21d. The TRO and injunction I'm requesting is so mild that I wouldn't expect a hearing, but we'll see.

[hobie]

OMG! Your pro se screed is hilarious!

I urge all the other attorney's here to read this petition he linked. I take back all the cracks I've made to all the hayseeds here about being conspiracy nuts. You're amateurs compared to Mr. Pendleton here.

[pro tip, Mr. Pendleton...using Proton is a dead giveaway that you're nuts]

From the first three paragraphs of the background:

"BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen who currently resides in Quebec, Canada, where he is seeking asylum as a person in need of protection from persecution under the U.N. treaty of 1951, colloquially known as the Geneva Convention. The nexus of Plaintiff’s asylum claim involves “government sanctioned defamation …, persistent threats of trumped-up charges from state and federal officials, and a risk of cruel and unusual punishment upon return.” Pendleton v. Miyares, et al., No. 23-7500 (U.S. Oct. 24, 2024 (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-7500/330714/20241030153955479_Rehear.pdf).

This began in October 2013, when Plaintiff became the target of a sophisticated cyberstalking campaign perpetrated by George Mason University economics professor Tyler Cowen of Virginia, who was recently identified through FOIA documents as a federal employee and who has ties to CIA-backed surveillance company Palantir Technologies. See Pendleton v. United States, et al., No. 01218, ECF 18, pg. 23 (D.C. Oct. 15, 2025).

On March 26, 2014, after spending several months reporting Cowen’s activities to law enforcement across the country, Plaintiff attempted to place Mr. Cowen under citizen’s arrest according to the common law of Virginia for reasonable suspicion of felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 — “gaining unauthorized access to a protected computer” in furtherance of stalking or harassment. See, e.g..."

[John 4]

Wowza

[hobie]

Serious question: What did the George Mason professor do when you tried to citizen arrest him?

[jPendleton]

He ran. And then lied his way through court about being a fed with ties to Palantir.

[hobie]

At least the court there found you legally insane. Thank the lord for small mercies. Looks like your court-ordered treatment didn't work, though.

[jPendleton]

The sick part of it is I would have been better off convicted. Virginia and many other states are abusing insanity acquittees. I reluctantly entered a dual pleading to include insanity on the third day of trial and never claimed to have any illness. There has in fact never been any evidence, just prejudice, people not knowing what they're talking about.

[John 4]

Do you think maybe the belief that economics blogger Tyler Cowen is controlling your mind might be considered evidence in some people's eyes?

[jPendleton]

Funny you should repeat that because I've never accused anyone of controlling my mind. That was the first instance of Cowen perjuring himself in 2014.

The accusations of computer hacking and cyberstalking were related to the GMU police a week before the incident. They then discussed this with Cowen --- mind control had nothing to do with it.

[John 4]

Bro.

"Pendleton inferred that the professor was stalking him because the professor had blogged about Seattle, where Mr. Pendleton lived, and other events “relat[ing] to Plaintiff’s daily activities on both his computer and his phone,” and because Mr. Pendleton’s operating system crashed to “interrupt[] [him] masturbating on his laptop” shortly after he had commented on the professor’s blog."

[jPendleton]

Yes, he went after my girlfriend too.

The courts have refused to respond to the legal claims and have consistently mischaracterized my petitions. The recent example in DC is the most glaring of all.

Here's the motion for preliminary injunction I filed last month along with a request for judicial notice:
https://drive.proton.me/urls/STET6DYBA0#sGBPbu2hYQjm

[hobie]

Yeah...mentioning the masturbating was superfluous for the sake of the petition. But now enquiring minds want to know: what were you fantasizing about or looking at?

[Dr. Ed 2]

0n a serious note, do not forget what the Soviets were doing in the '70s. Why they were expelled from the world psych assn.

[John 4]

Any chance Trump's flirtation with Canada-as-51st-state earlier this year was so he could take control of the country and deny your asylum request (on behalf of Peter Thiel and Tyler Cowen of course)?

[jPendleton]

Doubtful. I have a very strong asylum claim. But the process takes several years and because of Canada's privacy laws, which are literally copied and pasted from the FCRA, there is no "durable solution" to the defamation that is preventing me from working professionally. In the next few months I'll be applying for humanitarian visas and what they call "third country resettlement."

[Dr. Ed 2]

WE DON'T WANT QUEBEC!!!!

[hobie]

We know. You just want the two hillbilly provinces in the middle.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Good fishing in Quebec..."

[John 4]

The man who hit a George Mason University professor with pepper spray during his lecture Wednesday has been identified. Turns out, he is not a student at the school.

"Jonathan Pendleton, you see him here -- is accused of walking into a classroom and attacking professor Tyler Cowen. Pendleton yelled 'citizen's arrest!' before the attack. Police arrested him as he tried to handcuff the professor."

Yes, an arrest during an attempted citizen's arrest, apparenty. Pendleton is facing serious charges — abduction and assault. He'll get a hearing next month.

WUSA reports Pendleton jumped on a desk, sprayed Cowen and then started chasing him before an off-duty officer subdued him.

[jPendleton]

Something like that. Assailant would be a more neutral term because of course the security guard in Burke v. Com., 515 S.E.2d 111, 30 Va. App. 89 (Ct. App. 1999) (citizen's arrest using pepper spray) was not called an "attacker."

First guy on the scene was a CIA police officer who was taking classes at the law school --- he just stood there. Then a nice fellow from the Arlington PD showed up.

[John 4]

"was not called an 'attacker'"

Truly an injustice has been done to you.

[jPendleton]

That is the basis of the lawsuits that no one will answer.

[hobie]

Bro, you are living, breathing psychotic soap opera. And you have definitely made my day. Thank you.

[John 4]

I usually don't crack a beer until the 4 pm NFL games, but I might make an exception today.

[David Nieporent]

He's more entertaining than the racist guy who dashed across a subway car to assault some black people for dancing and then claimed he was acting in self-defense because he was afraid that they might bump into him while they were dancing.

[John 4]

Genuine question: do you remember what vid you were cranking it to when Tyler pulled the plug?

[jPendleton]

It's in my 2014 testimony in Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia. When the computer rebooted, someone --- presumably Cowen, was opening song files with suggestive titles.

[John 4]

Why did he do that?????

[jPendleton]

Cowen is part of a network of federal moderators on the Internet -- he took an interest in my comments and then decided to intimidate me.

Here's the amended complaint in DC: https://drive.proton.me/urls/DS2TSVWCVR#jGpTboGJKn2e

[Dr. Ed 2]

You know, there is a very real possibility that he has a very real virus on that computer...

In my dimension of reality, a computer doing something strange after rebooting (or even an uncommanded reboot) is usually a good sign of a virus.

Now if he opened an email attachment from the guy, well, maybe...

[hobie]

See what you caused, Pendleton? Now you've triggered the same schizophrenia inherent in half the hayseeds here

[jPendleton]

Dr. Ed, the government put backdoors in the processors of all devices: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/intels-management-engine-security-hazard-and-users-need-way-disable-it

They have total access and total control of the Internet that runs on western chips (Intel, AMD, ARM). I have a degree in cybersecurity, btw --- I was doing devops at Apple a few years ago.

[hobie]

HaHa! Link please

[John 4]

https://www.scrippsnews.com/us-news/prof-pepper-spray

[hobie]

Fucking hell, Pendleton. Stun gunning a student wasn't very nice

[jPendleton]

That charge was nolle pros'd --- the kid went back to China. He ran into me, it was inadvertent.

[John 4]

With a great story to tell though! "I went to GMU and all I got was stun-gunned by a lunatic" won't fit on a t-shirt, unfortunately.

[hobie]

He spooked that Chinaman so thoroughly that he gave up law school and went home. That's some mega-MAGA immigration enforcement. If you just sufficiently bribed the Trump family, you'd get a hero homecoming. Come to think of it, your acts alone may get the pardon.

[hobie]

HaHa! The old 'He fell on the knife several times' defense

[jPendleton]

You're getting 12 years of news in a few minutes... the really interesting part is that I've been mysteriously shut out of the federal courts. Before even mentioning Cowen and surveillance, just filing legal challenges to statutes in Virginia.

Now I'm shadow banned on X.

[hobie]

Bro, thought I'd do you a favor and asked AI this:

'Can the United States order an ex pat to be hospitalized for mental illness in another country?'

"No, the U.S. cannot order an expatriate to be hospitalized in another country, as this is the responsibility of the foreign country's local authorities."

So you're clear on that one. However....

'Can the United States have an ex pat extradited from another country for abuse of the courts?'

"Yes, the U.S. can pursue extradition for abuse of the courts, but it depends on a formal treaty between the countries and whether the specific "abuse" constitutes a crime listed in the treaty."

[jPendleton]

That would probably help my cause --- I'm suing for my passport and just trying to get either a yes or a firm "no," in which case I would have a claim to statelessness under the treaty and be entitled to a travel document.

[hobie]

Exactly who took your passport and why?

[jPendleton]

The State Department revoked my passport in 2021 thinking I'm charged with crimes I was acquitted of in 2014. It's really as simple as that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is NGI an acquittal?

And how did he get into Canada, you need a passport now.

[jPendleton]

Yes, NGRI is and has always been an acquittal like any other. It is a mens rea test of intent:

“For double jeopardy purposes, a [verdict of] not guilty by reason of insanity is a conclusion that criminal culpability had not been established, just as much as any other form of acquittal.”
McElrath v. Georgia, 144 S. Ct. 651, 601 U.S. 87, 217 L. Ed. 2d 419 (2024) (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 10, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978).

I rode a bike through a corn field in Vermont, Dr. Ed. I filed for asylum in Montreal a couple weeks later, August 2024. I'm suing for my passport because it is a useful expedient to starting over in another country --- there is no solution to this mess in Canada.

[hobie]

Well, in all seriousness, I think your assertion that you are not in fact guilty of the crimes is colorable. However, a passport can also be taken away if a court orders it for whatever reason it sees fit. Did a court order it confiscated unrelated to your 'crimes'?

[jPendleton]

Whether or not I'm factually innocent, there was certainly a mistrial based on suppression of material evidence. On that there is no question.

The State Department revoked the passport in 2021 and wouldn't renew it because the FBI is reporting a warrant out of Virginia listing the crimes I was acquitted of in 2014, citing 22 C.F.R. 51.60(b)(9).

Our passports are tied up with our constitutional rights to speech (expression, association), liberty, due process --- the courts have not and may not arbitrarily revoke them. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 78 S. Ct. 1113, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1204 (1958).

[hobie]

"Our passports are tied up with our constitutional rights to speech (expression, association), liberty, due process..."

No they are not. Like a drivers license, a passport is the property of the state that they allow you to have as a privilege. They can take either back whenever they please (with valid reason).

As to your CFR:

"b) The [State] Department may refuse to issue a passport in any case in which the Department determines or is informed by competent authority that:
9) The applicant is the subject of an outstanding state or local warrant of arrest for a felony"

So some judge somewhere issued a warrant for your arrest and you then skedaddled on a bicycle across a cornfield into Canada. Which makes it sound like you're a fugitive. And not a bright one because you've placed traceable addresses (I don't care if you think a mailbox center will protect you) on all your court documents.

Good news! I think you'll be back in the US before you know it!

[jPendleton]

If the government wants to argue that they can arbitrarily revoke my liberty, they can keep the passport. Again, I've seen enough of the "rights" the US has to offer (they're fake).

The warrant is for failure to appear for a civil hearing, and nothing about it is "incident to lawful process" as the asylum law puts it. As I've been pointing out in the countless unanswered petitions, the entire statutory scheme in Virginia has been unconstitutional since Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 112 S. Ct. 1780, 118 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1992).

But the courts like those backdoors and dossiers Palantir provides, so...

[hobie]

Well, because you've been a good chap and have entertained me so much for hours, I took a deeper dive into your case history. You are indeed an international fugitive. You broke the conditions of your release from the loony bin by fleeing the state of Virginia. So the warrant for your arrest is valid. You were arrested in Austin, TX in 2022 but got lucky because no one from Virginia bothered to pick you up in the 10 day fugitive hold window. [see your https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-7500/310024/20240520092730576_20240520-092040-00003449-00004862.pdf ]

So...NO...you ain't getting your passport back. And...NO...Canada is not going to give you asylum. I suspect Canada probably doesn't know you are even in their country. Because if they did...you'd be on a plane. My professional advice to you is to lay low and stop bombarding the courts while you are still a fugitive.

[jPendleton]

"Fugitive" would mean that I was serving a sentence or have been charged with a crime which is impossible as a matter of law.

The state crime that the federal judges (lacking jurisdiction) have tried to charge me with, which does not appear on the warrant, violates the Equal Protection Clause. There is no way to turn a civil commitment in Virginia into a felony prosecution, nevermind that the entire thing has been unconstitutional from the beginning.

And because all this is the definition of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and also fits the definition of torture under the Convention, I have an undeniable asylum claim.

[hobie]

Well, try to process this distinction: perhaps you are not a fugitive of the criminal justice system, but rather a 'fugitive' from loony bin confinement. This is a vague area of law for me, but that's my general understanding. So - right or wrong - if you want to get square with society, you'll have to re-commit yourself to the loony bin until it can be determined that you will no longer zap Chinese law students

[jPendleton]

I'd rather be a celebrity in Shanghai.

[hobie]

Yeah, Bro. Do the Edward Snowden thing and flee to Russia from China. Russia will definitely, for sure, not send you into the frontline trenches

[jPendleton]

Edward Snowden works for the U.S. government. He's delivering a cover story about decrypting communications "on wire," in transit, which is obviously not how the system works: see the Intel Management Engine.

And if by "trenches," you mean RT News, then yeah. It's the U.S. that needs to get right with society and prove that there's something worth salvaging.

[jPendleton]

You're thinking of Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 101 S. Ct. 2766, 69 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1981) where the Secretary of State revoked the passport of William Agee deciding that he was a threat to national security. That's a very suspect holding, especially in these circumstances.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I the only one offended by the Lowe's Spanish-only ads which keep popping up at the bottom of the screen?

BOYCOTT LOWES!!!

[Sarcastr0]

Damn I haven’t had you off mute for a bit..did you get more racist?

If it doesn’t pick you pocket or pick your nose…

[hobie]

Add it to the list! You keep this up and one day you'll get the label of free speech censor.

Walmart. NFL. Gillette. Target. Netfiix. Nike. Pepsi. Genfiddich. Rolling Stone. CNN. Apple. USA Today. NBC. GoodYear. Budweiser. Nike. Univision. Disney. Nordstrom. Macy's. HBO. Google. Oreo/Nabisco. Fox News (called Arizona for Biden). Starbucks. Amazon. Air B&B. TJ Maxx. HSN. Twitter. Kathy Griffin. Dixie Chicks. Kuerig. American Eagle Outfitters. Kelloggs. Super Bowl halftime. Beyonce. Cracker Barrel

But I think my favorite list is the one put out by the NEBRASKA TAXPAYERS FOR FREEDOM. A monster wish list of boycotting for almost all entities on earth that didn't sufficiently support Trump https://www.netaxpayers.org/archives/4956

Some standouts are:
"Alyssa Milano: called for a sex boycott against conservative men."
"Bed, Bath, & Beyond: dropped Trump merchandise."
"Bloomberg Philanthropies: supports regressive taxes on soft drinks."
"Elton John: refused to perform at Trump Inauguration"
"Funky Winkerbean: cartoon strip featured anti-gun kids holding protest signs."
"HBO: leftist movies."
"Humane Society of the U.S.: radicals who have taken over this entity unduly pressure grocery chains to use ag products only from uncaged animals. Also, the group opposed importing starving elephants from Africa to American zoos."

It just gets sadder from there

[ducksalad]

I'm not offended by an ad being Lowe's or being in Spanish only. I am offended by anything that pops up unwanted.

But it's business and advertising is what they do. What really pisses me off is pop-ads from my own government, paid for using tax money, featuring ICE Barbie. The fact that her ads are in English tells you who the real audience is.

[John F. Carr]

I believe the ads are personalized. If you are seeing an ad in Spanish, The Algorithm has a reason to believe it will appeal to you. Maybe you played some Carlos Santana. Maybe there's an MS-13 member in the bushes outside leeching off your wifi.

[John 4]

Probably from his constant searches about the SoUtHerN InVaSioN and big booty latina porn.

[ThePublius]

It could also be location dependent. Since I moved to New Bedford I get ads in Spanish and Portuguese; which is fine, I don't mind. NB is 47% Portuguese, after all, and there are a lot of Spanish speakers here, too.

[hobie]

His incessant talk of killing Mexicans probably did it.

[Michael P]

I'm not offended by them -- I pay for Reason Plus, so I get a delightfully ad-free experience.

Ads bug me in proportion to their intrusiveness, not their language. Ads in Spanish, Japanese or to a lesser extent French, Italian and German let me exercise foreign languages.

[ThePublius]

Lighter fare.

I've recently become re-interested in oil painting. Hey, I'm retired, why not? I tried about 25 years ago and I just ended up with mud on the canvas.

I have done a lot of browsing and decided to look into Bob Ross and Bill Alexander. Wow, it's clear to me that Ross ripped off Alexander. Sad.

Anyway, Alexander was a bit of a nut, claiming to have invented 'wet-on-wet,' a.k.a. alla prima, which was a "technique actually originated in Flanders during the 15th century, and was used by Frans Hals, Diego Velázquez, Caravaggio, Paul Cézanne, John Singer Sargent, and Claude Monet, among many others."

But, wow, if you watch Alexander's 'Magic of Oil Painting' videos and Ross's 'Joy of Painting' you can clearly see the rip-off. Ross studied under Alexander, and then with partners went mass market with it.

Ross produced something like 30,000 paintings. Some have come up for auction recently, fetching $660k for 3 paintings. It seems buyers are more TV fans rather than serious art collectors.

So, anyone else painting? If so, what medium, and what kind of subjects? I'm interested in oil and portraits.

[hobie]

I do hyper-photorealistic portraits in colored pencils. A lot more control using pencils. Modern pencils such as Prismacolor are as creamy and blendable as paint

[ThePublius]

Oh, wow. Interesting. I'd like to hear more about that. When and how did you get into it?

[hobie]

Oh, twenty or so years ago I had some time on my hands so I thought I'd see if I could draw. Turns out I could.

Here's one of the first drawings I did. An original Angelina Jolie. Everything after that was in color

https://photos.app.goo.gl/teSvTg9mH1djHAEh8

[ducksalad]

Jeebus, that really is hyperrealistic.

[ThePublius]

Wow, that's fantastic! Nice job!

[hobie]

Thanks. The hands are my favorite part. Hers are so graceful and feminine.

[SRG2]

Could you two gentlemen link to more images of your works, please?

[hobie]

I added a photo of the drawing of my mother in the link I provided above. And also one of some aspen trees in sunlight which is not realistic because it is done in an impressionist style

[ThePublius]

Wow, you are very talented, hobie. Thanks for sharing.

I, unfortunately, don't have any paintings worthy of sharing as of yet.

[hobie]

I'm sure your art is fine. Besides, you don't want a Marxist pedophile like me hogging the show. Let's see something you did.

[Commenter_XY]

You have real talent, hobie. Don't let it go to waste.

[bernard11]

Nice work, Hobie.

[ThePublius]

PSA: Woolite carpet and upholstery cleaner really works!

The spray/brush thing kinda sucks and is hard and counterintuitive to use, but once you figure it out, this stuff is great. Push the button, scrub with the can's brush, let it sit a bit, and then wipe aggressively with a wet/damp microfiber cloth.

I'm very pleased with this. My 'daily sitter' club chair's arm rests had become quite dirty, but they are like new now!

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Woolite-Carpet-Upholstery-Foam-Cleaner-12-oz-8352Y/26542098

I have no connection of pecuniary interest, just reporting on my experience.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One of my long-term interests is the Bible. I still have my bible from high school. Personally, I think an open-minded, questioning, and informed understanding of the complexities of the book* is best.

A Most Peculiar Book: The Inherent Strangeness of the Bible by Prof. Kristin Swenson is a helpful addition to this approach.

https://kristinswenson.com/?page_id=4374

Bart Ehrman, who provides a supportive blurb, has noted his books cover ground familiar to many clergy who learn the material in college and graduate school.

A simplistic support or rejection of the Bible is both not the ideal approach. A deep dive, at the very least, will bring up quite a lot of interesting and strange material.

==

* As noted by Swenson, it is somewhat misleading to speak of "the book," when there are a variety of Jewish and Christian scriptures.

[DDHarriman]

Have you read any Michael Heiser? I've enjoyed his work.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Not familiar.

[hobie]

You need to check out the videos of the biblical scholar and rising influencer Dan McClellan. He gives dispassionate interpretations of the true meanings throughout the bible based on, as he repeatedly says, Data Not Dogma.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I have and have also read his new book. He's good.

[hobie]

Looks like having people murdered at sea has finally made the headline of the NYTimes. Reps and Dems are both alarmed.