Disgusting! Caffeine free diet cokes.
Who’s on first?
— Cravin (@Mikey809051) November 28, 2022
WHAT WE FOUND
Only about 10% of domestic oil and gas drilling occurs on federal land. The rest happens on private and state property, Ed Hirs, energy fellow at the University of Houston, said. At the end of 2021, there were 9,173 approved applications for drilling permits on federal and tribal lands, according to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Jennifer Pett with the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), which represents independent oil and natural gas producers, told VERIFY that more than 9,000 approved permits aren’t producing oil and gas right now. Joshua Axelrod with the National Resources Defense Council also confirmed that more than 9,000 approved permits are unused.
However, that doesn’t mean oil companies could just start drilling right now and produce oil and gas.
According to the IPAA, some of these leases are going through a “complex regulatory process or are held up in litigation.” Western Energy Alliance, which represents hundreds of companies involved in the exploration and production of oil and natural gas, says on its website that it is defending more than 2,200 leases in court, most of which cannot be developed while the cases are ongoing.
Hirs explained that a variety of factors can halt the oil drilling process for unused permits.
“Federal leases…are subject to environmental studies. They’re also subject to lawsuits filed by neighbors, by municipalities, by counties and state governments. And so it’s become a more arduous process,” he said.
Companies often need to have separate permits secured for multiple well sites before they can bring in an oil rig, the IPAA says. But just because the government approves the permits doesn’t guarantee the well will produce oil and gas, as some never do. This means approved permits may go unused.
“If you’ve gone, like most companies do, and filed a dozen or two dozen [permits] at a time, and your first well turns out to be a dry hole, you’re not going to go ahead and drill the rest of those,” Hirs said.
It’s true that companies will sometimes sit on unused permits until it makes more financial sense. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that since there isn’t a penalty for not using a drilling permit, some companies wait to begin drilling until oil prices are high enough to make it worth their while. One operator told the GAO that they would add a drilling rig if the price of oil increases and may suspend one if it decreases. Another said a permit may go unused if oil and gas prices are too low for them to turn a profit.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose challenges for oil companies, too. Some are facing a six-month waiting period for piping materials needed to drill and are still short-staffed after layoffs spurred by the pandemic-induced drop in demand for oil, Pett said.
Man shoots another man in self-defense at Midland gas station
MIDLAND, Texas (KMID/KPEJ) – A Midland man was arrested after a shooting at a gas station.
According to a city of Midland press release, on Saturday, November 26th at approximately 8:30 P.M., Midland Police Department officers were called to the DK Convenience Store in the 5800 block of W. Interstate 20 in reference to shots fired.
While responding to the scene, officers were notified of a gunshot victim with non-life-threatening injuries at Midland Memorial Hospital, identified as 21-year-old Luis Miguel Espinoza Galindo. During the investigation, it was discovered that Galindo fired his gun at two males, one of which returned fire in self-defense, striking Galindo.
Galindo was released from MMH and later transported to Midland County Jail for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
The investigation is ongoing.
Democratic Senator’s Admission Dumps Cold Water on Joe Biden’s Gun Control Agenda–For Now
President Joe Biden has long been calling for a ban against so-called “assault weapons,” which he just doubled down on this holiday weekend, causing quite a concern with his language for those who care about the Second Amendment. Democratic senators, however, are a bit wiser on the likelihood of such sweeping legislation passing that chamber. During his Sunday appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) admitted to host Dana Bash that when it comes to whether they have currently the votes to pass such a ban, the answer is “probably not.”
“He wants to pass a so-called assault weapons ban in this lame-duck next month. You know the math on how difficult that is better than most people. You have been working on this for a long time. Is there any path to getting that done,” Bash asked Murphy, referring to Biden and his priorities.
Murphy’s acknowledgment of “probably not” refers to whether or not the ban has those 60 votes in the Senate “right now.” That doesn’t mean he’s given up for good, though. “But let’s see if we can try to get that number as close to 60 as possible. If we don’t have the votes, then we will talk to Senator Schumer and maybe come back next year with maybe an additional senator and see if we can do better,” he offered.
Come next Congress, Democrats will still be in the majority, with at least 50 senators who are Democrats or caucus with the Democrats, in addition to Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaking vote. It’s possible they’ll expand their majority, if Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) holds onto his seat against Republican opponent Herschel Walker, with the runoff election coming on December 6.
Bash also pressed Murphy as to if there’s “any action on guns that’s possible,” or whether they will keep pushing for this ban, to which Murphy reminded her that was the legislation that passed the House and is now before the Senate.
The senator claimed “we would see less mass shootings in this country” with such a ban, and also downplayed concerns with the legislation, offering “nobody’s talking about taking those weapons away from individuals, we’re just talking about stopping new sales. ”
When Bash to her credit did push Murphy on how criminals don’t follow laws, as the shooter at the Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, used an illegally-purchased handgun, Murphy was forced to admit that “if you pass an assault weapons ban, you’re not going to magically eliminate mass shootings in this country.”
He did tout the 1994 ban on such “assault weapons,” as Biden has done. As Mia covered in early September, after the president also made remarks on August 30 calling for such a ban, the ban was not as successful as he claims it had been.
Sen. Murphy was a big part of negotiations to pass gun control laws, laws which, as Bash pointed out, did not actually stop the recent shootings in Colorado and Virginia.
Murphy did begin his conversation with Bash by praising the president on the issue, including when it comes to that legislation. “Well, first, let me say, the president’s been heroic in standing up for victims of gun violence. We passed the first gun safety measure in 30 years this summer. It’s going to save thousands of lives. And that wouldn’t have happened if Joe Biden hadn’t led,” Murphy said. The senator also categorized Biden’s recent remarks as how “he stood up and spoke his mind, as he did this weekend.”
When speaking specifically about the law incentivizing states to pass red flag laws, with Bash pointing out that Colorado and Virginia already had them in place, Murphy offered “I think it’s important to know that the bill that we passed is being implemented as we speak. But it takes a little while for these big, complicated laws to be put into place.”
He went on to blame law enforcement in Colorado, referring to as a “so-called Second Amendment sanctuary state,” where gun control laws are not enforced. “That is a growing problem in this country,” Murphy warned, who went on to threaten further action.
“And I think we’re going to have to have a conversation about that in the United States Senate. Do we want to continue to supply funding to law enforcement in counties that refuse to implement state and federal gun laws? Red flag laws are wildly popular, right? You’re just temporarily taking guns away from people that,” he claimed.
When asked by Bash if that means Murphy “want[s] to withhold money for law enforcement,” the senator did not deny it. “I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they are refusing to implement these gun laws,” he said. “I will talk to my colleagues about what our approach should be this problem, but 60 percent of counties in this country are refusing to implement the nation’s gun laws. We have got to do something about that,” he again warned.
So much for Democrats trying to claim they don’t actually want to defund the police. It looks like Murphy may have dumped cold water on yet another Biden administration talking point, inadvertently or not.
BLUF
When parents, voters, and political leaders understand the true nature of Drag Queen Story Hour and the ideology that drives it, they will work quickly to restore the limits that have been temporarily—and recklessly—abandoned. They will draw a bright line between adult sexuality and childhood innocence, and send the perversions of “genderf***,” “primitivism,” and “degeneracy” back to the margins, where they belong.
The Real Story Behind Drag Queen Story Hour
Aimed at children, the phenomenon is far more subversive than its defenders claim
Drag Queen Story Hour—in which performers in drag read books to kids in libraries, schools, and bookstores—has become a cultural flashpoint. The political Right has denounced these performances as sexual transgressions against children, while the political Left has defended them as an expression of LGBTQ pride. The intellectual debate has even spilled into real-world conflict: right-wing militants affiliated with the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters have staged protests against drag events for children, while their counterparts in the left-wing Antifa movement have responded with offers to serve as a protection force for the drag queens.
Families with children find themselves caught in the middle. Drag Queen Story Hour pitches itself as a family-friendly event to promote reading, tolerance, and inclusion. “In spaces like this,” the organization’s website reads, “kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves.” But many parents, even if reluctant to say it publicly, have an instinctual distrust of adult men in women’s clothing dancing and exploring sexual themes with their children.
These concerns are justified. But to mount an effective opposition, one must first understand the sexual politics behind the glitter, sequins, and heels. This requires a working knowledge of an extensive history, from the origin of the first “queen of drag” in the late nineteenth century to the development of academic queer theory, which provides the intellectual foundation for the modern drag-for-kids movement.
The drag queen might appear as a comic figure, but he carries an utterly serious message: the deconstruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life. The ideology that drives this movement was born in the sex dungeons of San Francisco and incubated in the academy. It is now being transmitted, with official state support, in a number of public libraries and schools across the United States. By excavating the foundations of this ideology and sifting through the literature of its activists, parents and citizens can finally understand the new sexual politics and formulate a strategy for resisting it.
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy questions law enforcement funding for ‘Second Amendment sanctuaries’
Democrat Senator Chris Murphy says "we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement" in counties and states which have declared themselves "Second Amendment sanctuaries." pic.twitter.com/TxFbuAulDa
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 27, 2022
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Sunday that there needs to be a “conversation” about whether to continue to fund law enforcement in a “Second Amendment sanctuary state” or counties that are “refusing to implement” gun laws that are on the books.
Murphy said “Second Amendment sanctuaries” are counties that have declared that they are “not going to enforce state and federal gun laws” and that there needs to be discussion in the Senate over whether they want to continue to fund law enforcement in these counties.
CNN’s Dana Bash followed up and asked if he wanted to withhold funding for law enforcement.
“I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they’re refusing to implement these gun laws,” Murphy said. “I’ll talk to my colleagues about what our approach should be to this problem. But 60% of counties in this country are refusing to implement the nation’s gun laws. We’ve got to do something about that.”
Murphy said the county where the Colorado shooting at Club Q happened is a “Second Amendment sanctuary state.”
SAF FILES BRIEF SUPPORTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST DELAWARE HB 450
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an opening brief in support of its motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against the State of Delaware and enforcement of House Bill 450, which radically expands the state’s laws and bans so-called “assault weapons.”
SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., DJJAMS LLC, and two private citizens, William Taylor and Gabriel Gray, for whom the lawsuit is named. The lawsuit names Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings as the defendant. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Bradley P. Lehman at Gilbert Scali Busenkell & Brown LLC.
The case is in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
“We are hopeful that the Court will take swift action with today’s motion for preliminary injunction against Delaware’s ban on constitutionally protected arms that are in common use across the nation,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Each day this law is not enjoined, Delawareans suffer an impermissible deprivation of their constitutional rights. This cannot stand and we are hopeful that the Court will preliminarily enjoin the State from enforcing its ban while the case proceeds on the underlying merits.”
The brief notes that the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in the Bruen case “rejected all interest balancing and the Third Circuit’s prior ‘two-step’ approach in the context of Second Amendment claims.” As a result, plaintiffs contend the Delaware General Assembly’s attempt to justify HB 450 by claiming it has “a compelling interest to ensure the safety of Delawareans” and that the banned arms, which are in common use, “have no place in civilian life,” are entitled to no deference.
“Banning an entire class of firearms may create the impression Delaware lawmakers are ‘doing something’ about violent crime,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but in reality, it will not prevent criminals from misusing firearms, and only serves to penalize law-abiding gun owners.”
20 MILLON MORE ROUNDS SENT IN 26TH DRAWDOWN FROM U.S. STOCKS TO UKRAINE
The Pentagon last week announced the latest withdrawal of equipment from U.S. military inventories for Ukraine since August 2021– including millions of rounds of ammo.
The 26th draw-down authorized by the Biden Administration includes 150 heavy machine guns fitted with thermal sights to counter Russian drones, 250 vehicles, 10,000 120mm mortar rounds, and “over” 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition among other items. In all, the latest stockpile is valued at up to $400 million. Overall, this brings the total of American military assistance to Ukraine this year to more than $19 billion. By comparison, Ukraine spent just $5.9 billion on its entire military in 2021.
“To meet Ukraine’s evolving battlefield requirements, the United States will continue to work with its Allies and partners to provide Ukraine with key capabilities,” noted the Pentagon.
When it comes to the running tally of equipment transferred from U.S. stocks to Ukraine this year, more than 104 million rounds of small arms ammunition of .50 caliber or smaller have been allocated along with 198 pieces of artillery and over 1.2 million shells. Add to this over 1,600 Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems, 8,500 Javelin tank killer missiles, and 38,000 “other anti-armor systems.”
The full list, as of Nov. 23, is below:
Handgun owners carrying daily in US doubled in 4 years; self-protection cited as main reason: study.
Twice the number of Americans were carrying handguns daily in 2019 compared to 2015, according to a new study published this month.
Around 6,000 gun owners carried handguns every day in 2019, up from 3,000 in 2015, according to a study from the American Journal of Public Health published on Nov. 16.
The number of respondents to the online survey who said they had carried a gun in the last month also nearly doubled from 9 million to 16 million in 2015.
The study focuses
solely on owners carrying a handgun on their person, not in their car.
Twice the number of Americans were carrying handguns daily in 2019 compared to 2015, according to a new study published this month.
The upward trend found in the study comes as states loosen restrictions for carrying a handgun and more gun owners cite protection as a top concern.
A U.S. Supreme Court case last June also overturned strict gun carrying laws in New York.
The authors wrote, “This ruling could further catalyze the loosening of firearm-carrying regulations in different parts of the country at a time when, as our study indicates, trends in handgun carrying already point to more US adults carrying loaded handguns in public places, including without a permit when a permit is required.”
The study authors said a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning restrictive gun-carrying laws in New York could “catalyze the loosening of firearm-carrying regulations in different parts of the country.”
The study’s lead authors were Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, an epidemiology professor at the University of Washington; Amy Gallagher of the University of Washington; Deborah Azrael of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center; and Matthew Miller from Northeastern University, and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
The authors added, “Little is known about the frequency and features of firearm carrying among adult handgun owners in the United States. In fact, over the past 30 years, only a few peer-reviewed national surveys, conducted in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 2015, have provided even the most basic information about firearm carrying frequency.”
In 1994, the percentage of gun owners who said their main reason for having a firearm was protection was 46%, by 2015 it went up to 64% and spiked to 73% by 2019. In 2021, it was 83%.
Only one state allowed permit less handgun carry in 1990 but by 2021 it had increased to 21 states, according to the study.
Why gun owners should take Biden’s gun ban comments seriously
On Thanksgiving, Joe Biden once again called on Congress to enact a gun ban, proclaiming that “the idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick.” Biden further declared that semi-automatic firearms have “no socially redeeming value, and the claimed that the only reason why they’re sold is the “profit for the gun manufacturers.”
As my colleague Tom Knighton pointed out in his coverage of Biden’s remarks, the president seemingly conflated “semi-automatic firearm” with “assault weapon”; an invented term that generally refers to semi-automatic rifles but not all semi-automatic firearms. I’m not convinced, however, that this was an actual mistake on the part of Biden, despite his long history of mangling his public comments to the point they’re incomprehensible. No, in this case I suspect that Biden intentionally spoke about wanting to ban semi-automatic firearms because that is, in fact, what he wants to do.
Now, there’s no way that Congress is going to pass Biden’s gun ban, even in the lame duck session. There aren’t 60 votes to ban so-called assault weapons, much less the much broader universe of the hundreds of millions of semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns in the hands of peaceable gun owners. But what if Joe Biden isn’t planning on signing a gun ban bill, but instead abusing his executive authority to impose a sweeping gun ban through regulation instead?
It sounds crazy, but for months now the gun control lobby has been advocating for the administration to take that step, maintaining in court filings and advocacy pieces that semi-automatic firearms are “readily converted” to fully-automatic fire and should therefore be treated like machine guns under the provisions of the National Firearms Act.
Did conservatives who were banned from Twitter ever burn down building or even threaten to do so? https://t.co/ciGNvLPWUQ
— John R Lott Jr. (@JohnRLottJr) November 27, 2022
Skynet smiles
Dystopia Arrives in San Francisco: Authorities Introduce Policy Granting Robots a License to Kill.
In this episode of Dystopian Moments on the Left…
While I hesitate to make comparisons to George Orwell’s dystopian account of a future totalitarian state in the classic “1984” while writing about the crazy goings on in today’s America, what term is better suited when dystopia finally arrives? That is if you consider killer robots taking out human beings in the streets.
The San Francisco Police Department has submitted a proposal to city officials, which is likely to be approved on November 29, that would give robots the license to use deadly force against suspects who threaten the lives of citizens or police officers — with military-style weapons, no less.
Look, I’m all in on the notion that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, but — and maybe it’s just me — robots armed with military-style weapons killing human beings sounds a bit creepy and, well, Orwellian. Nonetheless, as reported by Mission Local, the draft policy reads:
Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when the risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD.
San Francisco’s rules committee unanimously approved a version of the draft last week, which will face the Board of Supervisors on November 29th, where it’s likely to sail through. The Board will also be required to sign off on the purchase of any new military-style equipment, but the police will be able to replace existing equipment up to a value of $10 million without approval.
Tifanei Moyer, senior staff attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, wrote in an email, as noted by Mission Local, that the policy isn’t standard and that legal professionals and citizens should reject the idea.
We are living in a dystopian future, where we debate whether the police may use robots to execute citizens without a trial, jury, or judge. This is not normal. No legal professional or ordinary resident should carry on as if it is normal.
That’s a bit nonsensical in my book, given that an officer in the same situation, as outlined earlier, would make the same deadly force decision — or would he or she? Jennifer Tu, a fellow with the American Friends Service Committee, appears to disagree:
There is a really big difference between hurting someone right in front of you, and hurting someone via a video screen.
The SFPD has 17 robots in its arsenal, 12 of which are fully functional. According to police spokesperson Officer Robert Rueca, they have never been used to attack anyone. That appears about to change. If the policy is approved as expected, it will just be a matter of time before a robot takes out a suspect.
Hell, let’s extrapolate. How long will it be before deadly robots patrol the crime-infested streets of cities across America? If it someday happens, would that be a good thing or bad? Questions abound.
On November 29, San Francisco and its citizenry will likely take a giant step forward — or would that be backward? All the way to George Orwell’s 1984.
It’s only bizarre until you remember the Chinese media is nothing more than the propaganda organ of the Chinese commie goobermint, just like Tass and Pravda for the commie Russians.
Chinese media makes bizarre claim about guns
The Chinese media has, in recent years, opined plenty about the right to keep and bear arms.
Well, they have and they haven’t.
You see, they talk about guns and gun control, but they don’t acknowledge the right to own guns. A prime example is this editorial from China Daily.
A shooting at a Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, in the United States late on Tuesday left at least six people dead and some injured, three days after a shooting at a Colorado nightclub left five people dead and 25 injured. The number of mass gun killings in the US has now exceeded 600 for the third year in a row.
Gun violence was a major issue during the recent midterm elections in the US. US President Joe Biden said that gun violence must be tackled, but repeated shootings indicate that the problem is only getting worse.
It is not surprising that deaths from gun violence in the US are far higher than in any other developed country, given that with just 4.2 percent of the world’s population, the country has 46 percent of the world’s civilian guns.
Now, from this, it could appear as if this were just any other editorial from any American city. Guns are bad and shootings are happening and gun control is the only answer, blah blah blah.
But it’s how this wraps up that is telling.
The long-standing gun violence in the US is rooted in its “gun culture”, which came after the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, adopted in 1791, was judged to protect the right of citizens to own arms.
Given that the right to life is the most important human right, whether the US can effectively curb gun violence should be an important yardstick for the international community to measure its human rights.
What we’re seeing here is the communist party there using the Chinese media to try and deflect from their many human rights abuses by claiming America is a human rights abuser.
The problem is that this misrepresents a great deal.
You see, if the United States government was killing people, then maybe China would have a point–and remember, there is no independent media there. It’s all government-run–but that’s not what’s happening. These are private individuals killing private individuals. The government is no more responsible for its actions than any other nation is for the individual actions of its citizens.
The Chinese media here is trying to present our violent crime issue as if it somehow should absolve others of their government-driven abuses.
I’m sorry, but I’m not interested in being lectured by a government that has literal concentration camps that they have herded a minority population into.
Yes, individual Americans are killing other individual Americans, but the Chinese media has no place to criticize anyone when they’re the mouthpiece for a nation that believes in the forced sterilization of so-called undesirables.
Our right to keep and bear arms is a right. It’s anything but a human rights abuse.
While we all agree that something needs to be done about mass shootings, we don’t need to take China’s advice or anything said by the Chinese media. Especially since even the authoritarian controls there can’t stop violent crime.
Total number of NICS firearms background checks for Black Friday 2022 increase 2.8% percent from the previous Black Friday @NSSF @Everytown @POTUS @JoeBiden #2A #NSSF https://t.co/aIdNes3OQn
— Larry Keane (@lkeane) November 26, 2022
I think the Right needs to start funding more artists, filmmakers and writers instead of politicians and super-PACs.
You don't win a naval war without any ships, and you can't win a culture war without any culture.
We've been reacting too long. Time to go on the offensive.
— Get Paid Writing (@getpaidwrite) November 25, 2022
— Déborah (@dvorahfr) November 25, 2022
Instead of Asking How to Stop Mass Shootings, Left Targets Social Conservatives
This week, another evil mass shooter unleashed horror at a gay club in Colorado Springs, killing five and wounding another 25. The shooter—whose name I refuse to mention in order to disincentivize future shooters, who seek notoriety—was clearly mentally ill: Just last year, he reportedly threatened his mother with a bomb, resulting in his arrest.
Yet Colorado’s red flag law, which could have deprived the shooter of legal access to weaponry, was not invoked by either police or relatives. The Colorado Springs massacre, then, is yet another example of a perpetrator with more red flags than a bullfighting convention, and no one in authority willing to take action to do anything about him.
Yet the national conversation, as it so often does, now has been directed away from the question at hand—how to prevent mass shootings—and toward broader politics. Instead of seeking methodologies that might be effective in finding and stopping deranged individuals seeking murder without curbing rights and liberties for hundreds of millions of people, our political and media leaders have decided to blame Americans who oppose same-sex marriage, drag queen story hour, and “family friendly” drag shows. Disagreement with the radical leftist social agenda amounts to incitement to violence, they argue.
Thus, NBC News senior reporter Brandy Zadrozny said, “There is a pipeline. It starts from some smaller accounts online like Libs of Tiktok, it moves to the right-wing blogosphere, and then it ends up on Tucker Carlson or ends up out of a right-wing politician’s mouth, and it is a really dangerous cycle that does have real-world consequences.”
Michelle Goldberg of The New York Times wrote that “it seems hard to separate [these murders] from a nationwide campaign of anti-LGBTQ incitement. … They’ve been screaming that drag events … are part of a monstrous plot to prey on children. They don’t get to duck responsibility if a sick man with a gun took them seriously.”
Brian Broome wrote in The Washington Post that the shooting could not be “blamed on mental illness.” No, he stated, “It’s right-wing rhetoric that sparks these nightmares. … The bottomless list of homophobes and transphobes on the right don’t need to throw the rock and then hide their hands. Instead, they use someone else’s hands entirely.”
The Left’s attempt to lay responsibility for violence at the feet of anyone who opposes the transgressive social agenda doesn’t stop with blame—it extends to calls for full-scale censorship.
“We’re living in an environment that’s driven by two things,” averred Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. “Politicians who are using us to bolster their careers by creating division and hate, and number two is social media platforms that are monetizing hate, and especially against marginalized communities. They’re—they’re choosing profits over hate, and it’s killing, literally killing our community.”
Social media, the logic goes, ought to shut down or demonetize any video disagreeing with the GLAAD agenda.
This is cynical politics at its worst. It’s also nothing new. The Left routinely cites violent incidents as reason to crack down on free speech with which they disagree.
As the inimitably imbecilic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-Instagram, tweeted: “After Trump elevated anti-immigrant & anti-Latino rhetoric, we had the deadliest anti-Latino shooting in modern history. After anti-Asian hate w/ COVID, Atlanta. Tree of Life. Emanuel AME. Buffalo. And now after an anti-LGBT+ campaign, Colorado Springs. Connect the dots, @GOP.”
Yes, according to AOC, virtually every major mass shooting of the past seven years is the result of her political opponents—none of whom has called for violence. But in the world of the Left, disagreement is violence merely waiting to be unleashed. Which is why censorship, they believe, is the only way to achieve a more peaceful world.
But SloJoe said we’d be loved after Trump was gone!
China and Russia creeping further into West as major Latin American nations reject the US
Soon after Brazil’s leftist former president, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, secured a non-consecutive third term in October, the White House rushed to embrace the incoming government. With the addition of Brazil, a new bloc of Latin American countries that were once reliable U.S. partners will now be governed by presidents determined to expand ties with China, Russia, and Iran.
The Biden administration is eager to work with Lula on issues like climate and recently announced it is preparing an “early opportunity” to meet with him. This is in stark contrast to its treatment of outgoing conservative President Jair Bolsonaro, who could not secure a meeting with President Joe Biden until threatening to boycott the Summit of the Americas this past June.
Lula, who previously governed between 2003 and 2010, narrowly defeated incumbent Bolsonaro by a less than 2% margin. Lula’s political comeback is astounding after he spent 580 days in prison for convictions for money laundering and corruption charges. He was later released on procedural grounds by his Worker’s Party-appointed majority in the Supreme Court but was never exonerated.
The harsh economic impact of the pandemic and persistent media attacks on Bolsonaro both locally and internationally led a slim majority of Brazilians to opt for Lula, who spent months moderating his rhetoric and building a broad coalition with traditional centrist politicians.
If its engagements with the region’s other recently elected leftist leaders are any indication, the Biden administration is likely to pursue closer relations with Lula. But a White House eager to snub outgoing Bolsonaro and embrace Lula on issues like climate should not overlook the serious questions that another Lula term will pose for U.S. interests in its own neighborhood.
When Lula takes office on Jan. 1, every major Latin American economy will be governed by the far Left for the first time ever. A new bloc by way of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico is in the making. These countries will now be led by presidents who have derided U.S. influence while growing economic and diplomatic ties with the Cuban, Venezuelan, and Nicaraguan dictatorships.