Somebody in the current administration brings this piece of idiocy and the propaganda multiplicators appear to defend it.

He is the founder of People’s Policy Project, a think tank which apparently does not think much.

You do have to love Limo Liberals who have no idea what happens outside their little pampered world. You see, electric stoves run on not only on 220 volts but require that such 220 volts be delivered by a well built and stable electric grid. That is not a cheap investment. Are there electric stoves that run on 120 volts? Yes, but they impose a drain on the usual electric wiring in the house and it becomes expensive. Did I mention I am not talking about the US but in many other parts of the world?

I grew up in a household that cooked with gas. Why? First because there was no other option and then because when the electric company could finally deliver a stable source of 220, it was brutally expensive and simply not worthy. And this is the way for many countries in the world who wanted a way to cook meals without using wood stoves. There are not “chef” stoves costing thousands of dollars but basic sheet metal units with simple burners on top.

And the gas comes in bottles that are delivered by truck or you have to go to certain locations to trade old spent bottles for filled ones.

In Caracas, there were some ritzy areas where gas (LNG) was delivered via pipes and directly to your kitchen, but they were oh-so-very few and exclusive. The rest of us had to deal with the tanks and hoping we did not miss the day the truck went by to replenish a spent cylinder (Which is the reason we had two of 43 Kg AKA the big ones). I never cooked in an electric stove till I moved to the USA and truth be told, I never liked it. I still prefer gas and I do hate the new generation of glass top stoves with seething fury.

So, to finalize the rant, Mr. Bruenig is an elite Liberal racist who ignores the realties of the world he believes he wants to fix.

Because somehow, I do not see a solar-powered electric stove being in the cards anytime soon, nor seeing him cook in one.

PS: Does he go to restaurants? He has to, he does not look like a guy who can boil water without creating a minor incident. Does he demand his meals to be cooked in an electrical stove powered by Green Energy or he is hypocritical “unaware” on how they are cooked?

Welcome to another Friday Feedback. Hagar is onboard to give us an article per week from behind enemy lines. They seem to be getting some good traction.

You poor folks are going to have to put up with too many photo reviews coming in soon. Just made out like a bandit at a photography store that has closed down. Picked up a bunch of gear I wanted/needed. This, along with the stuff I just got will allow me to take some pretty good photos of some of the firearm stuff I have.

The image of Mrs. Pink from yesterday is the result of hours of prep so that the actual time from “yeah, I want to do this” to a finished picture was only about 15 minutes. That includes setting up the lighting, taking the pictures, importing the images, running the color calibration and then doing the image manipulation to straighten the image, fix some perspective, blur out the serial number and crop it down a little bit.

It took longer to find where I exported the image than it did to get and process the image.

Some of what I plan on doing is some macro photography. I.e. close up photos. That will be fun.

We heard about the Antonyuk case. It was interesting that I was able to get the Alito opinion, read it and get it out to you just as my sources were starting to make reports about it.

One lawyer I listen to explained that all of the references by Alito (joined by Thomas) to other cases in the district courts challenging the CCIA indicate that the Supreme Court is following these FU knee-jerk laws being passed by states and challenged by many.

Leave a comment below to let us know what we are missing, what you really are tired of hearing about, what you want more of, or just to tell us what jerks we are. And remember, anybody can comment on feedback articles.

Wow, nog nooit self só daarna gekyk nie… pic.twitter.com/wjPY6s1oM1

— Werner (@WernerToyota) January 10, 2023

Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice what can adequately explained with stupidity.

J.Kb’s Razor: Never attribute to bigotry what can adequately explained by other means.

Woke exists to violate J.Kb’s Razor.

The problem isn’t racism, bigotry, or unfairness.

The problem is topology.

The earth is a sphere and you can’t lay a sphere flat.

That is a Mercator projection map.

Every map has advantages and disadvantages, chosen for a reason.

Mercato projections have the advantage of consistent orientation.  Everywhere on the map, north is up, south us down, west is left, and east is right.  Longitude and latitude are at right angles so distances between two points are a straight line.  That is done by sacrificing scale.  Scale changes as latitude changes and it increases further north you go.

The right angle orientation makes it an easy map for novices to use.

It has nothing to do with diminishing Africa or privileging Europe.  It’s a useful projection for maritime navigation.

The Mollweide projection attempts to keep scale but as you can see, longitude cants towards the polls so north is only up at the equator.

A Goode’s projection attempts to keep scale and orientation, but ends of creating dead spaces.  You can’t draw a line between two points across oceans.

It’s a shitty map for navigation.

This dufus’s map attempts to keep orientation like a Mercator but proper scale, so ends up creating huge dead spaces between countries that eliminates relative positions.

There are real reasons of topology and cartography that maps look a certain way, and in none of them was “Africa is full of black people so I’m going to make it smaller to it seems less important” the motivating factor.

If you really want to teach kids about how the earth looks, don’t get a Woke teacher, get a fucking globe.

SIG P320 XFIVE DH3 Custom Works.

Tungsten infused polymer frame.

She’s a thicc girl, got some weight in lower half, but like they say, more cushion to resist the pushin’.

The American public no longer believes the Supreme Court is impartial

“Never in recent history, perhaps, have so many Americans viewed the Supreme Court as fundamentally partisan.”

Ummm, I’d guess the author of this rant never talked to anybody from the right in “recent history”. We had Sotomayor and Kagan appointed to the Supreme Court with some of the worse credentials and court history. We saw Kagan(?) refuse to recuse herself when ruling on ObamaCare when the state brought the arguments she wrote to the court.

We had the “notorious RGB” how was freaking awesome at finding a reason to go with her political choices in almost every major ruling.

For decades the question was never “Which leftist justice will side with the conservatives?” it was always “Which ‘conservative’ justice will cave this time?”

The number of decisions made by the Supreme Court while under leftist control that were unmoored from the constitution is absolutely amazing to consider.

Yes, many Americans view the Supreme Court as partisan, they have for decades, the difference is that it is now the left that is feeling it rather than rejoicing in it.

“In one recent poll, a majority of Americans opined that Supreme Court justices let partisan views influence major rulings.”

A true statement, I do believe that the leftist justices let their partisan views influence them. While I might not like some of the rulings that come out because they didn’t give me the results I want, I respect those conservative judges that follow the law, rather than their partisan views.

“But Democrats’ support has plummeted to 13 percent,…”

Of course, because they weren’t getting their way. Leftist love to cry when the lose, hoping mommy will come save them. For years “mommy” was SCOTUS.

Just look at the number of times that they run to the courts to overturn some conservative law, regulation or order. Yet they are always upset if a conservative asks for the same.

“Public support for the high court sank swiftly last summer in response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a landmark ruling that revoked a constitutional right to abortion. The decision delighted many conservatives but defied a large majority of Americans who believe abortion should be legal.”

Oh my, look at how they twist the language. “revoked a constitutional right” is their way of saying “abortion is a states issue”. As a conservative I approve of this. It didn’t outright ban abortion nor did it make abortion legal in all 50 states. It said that the states get to say.

This is because our country was designed to allow the different states to experiment within the bounds of the constitution. The people can then vote with their feet if it gets bad.

The big kicker is that they are conflating “abortion should be legal” with “should have a federally protected ability to legally get an abortion”. And the results are in the details. There are a number of conservatives that believe that all elective abortions should be illegal. There are others that have some other limit on when elective abortions should be illegal.

This means that “large majority” includes all those shadings of “should be legal”.

“Yet, partisan anger runs deeper than Dobbs. Liberals are fuming about a confluence of lucky timing and political maneuvering that enabled a Republican-controlled Senate to approve three conservative justices in four years, knocking the panel out of synch with the American public.”

It shouldn’t matter if the court, not panel, is “out of sync” with the American public. That is something for the legislature. The court is suppose to be honoring the Constitution by applying it faithfully as it was written, within the history and tradition of the Constitution.

The court is not suppose to be about winning popularity contests.

The term now being used is “legitimacy”.

“James L. Gibson, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, defines it[legitimacy] as ‘loyalty to the institution. It is willingness to support the institution even when it’s doing things with which you disagree.'”

Ok. That’s a reasonable definition. Not sure what Webster has to say, but I can work with this.

“But then, with Dobbs, the high court suffered ‘the largest decline in legitimacy that’s ever been registered, through dozens and dozens of surveys using the same indicators,’ Gibson said. ‘I’ve never seen anything like it.'”

Wait a moment, is legitimacy being loyal to the institution or is it something you get by polling? The court didn’t suffer a decline in legitimacy, it suffered an attack by the left questioning the Justice’s loyalty to the institution which the left defined as loyal to the laws, regulations, and rules they wanted to see upheld.

This is always the same game played by the left. Something is illegal for years and years and years. They finally get ONE decision to go their way. From that time forward it is evil to question that decision. From that point forward is the status quo and nobody should question it.

“‘The idea that you have the spouse of a Supreme Court justice advocating for overthrowing the government — sui generis, I think,’ said Caroline Fredrickson, a visiting law professor at Georgetown University, invoking the Latin term for ‘unique.'”

Except this is a lie. Ginni Thomas didn’t advocate for the overthrowing the government. Nobody did. And what difference does it make what Ginni does? She’s not a Supreme Court Justice. Just listen to the left screaming that there is no conflict of interest when there are spouses in the media of Democrats in the White House.

“‘[Roberts]’s the justice who twice saved Obamacare,” Malcolm said. Roberts joined the court’s liberals in rejecting legal challenges to health care reform by a popular president.”

Did Roberts save it by finding the law as written was Constitutional? Nope, he had to redefine a penalty as a tax. He gave the government the ability to tax people for not doing something. That’s a new tax for sure.

Roberts is the darling of the left right now because he can’t be trusted to follow the Constitution. He is much more likely to be swayed by political concerns.

“In its first term with a six-person conservative bloc, the high court overturned Roe, posited a Second Amendment right to carry guns in public and restricted the government’s role in combating climate change, among other rulings.  ”

Interesting word there “posited”. According to Oxford Languages it means “assume as fact; put forward as a basis of argument.” In other words it wasn’t that Bruen reaffirmed the guarantees of the second amendment belongs to the people for all lawful purposes, it was just “assumed” to be a fact, for argument’s sake.

This is all because the Supreme Court is no longer an extremist left-wing institution.

“In previous decades, by contrast, ‘the U.S. Supreme Court has rarely been out of step with the preferences of its constituents, the people,’ Gibson said. ‘Throughout history, the court has ratified the views of the majority, not opposed them.'”

Again we have this professor arguing that the court is suppose to be siding with the mob, not applying the law, as written.

“In the months to come, President Biden and congressional Democrats could restore the court’s ideological balance by packing it with liberals, or hobble it by narrowing its jurisdiction. But they probably won’t, legal observers say, because the Republicans could one day weaponize the same tools against the Democrats.”

It amazes me how often the left wants to change the rules when they win but don’t want the new rules to apply to them when the lose. Yes, Trump appointed 3 Justices. All of the noise about should or should not allowed a vote on Garland or Amy Coney Barrett was because the right was using the rules against the left. The left screamed for a do over or a change in rules. Something they would never do if the shoe was on the other foot.

Since they lost the battle of court packing, the left is now arguing for term limits for Supreme Court Justices. One has to ask “How would the left have responded to RBG being kicked off the court?”

From Rick The Bear:

Nice to see “assault weapons” can finally be freed from their social stigma so they can be above the hearth in every home (that wants one). 8>)

I had asked for a vertical gun stand. My lovely wife got me this nice wooden stand off Amazon. Took about 5 minutes to put up. Then her AR-15 went up on the wall.

Yes, I understand “Secure your Firearms!”

The average American has very little idea of what the word “classified” actually means. Most seem to think it indicates that a paper or idea listed as “classified” simply means “very private” or “for the listed parties only.” I doubt they have much concept of the importance of governmental and business information, or why something would be considered classified or confidential. 

The news is rife today with media reports about how classified papers were found at Biden’s office from 2017. “His personal lawyers found the classified material while packing files in a locked closet at an office that Mr. Biden used beginning in 2017. After the discovery, the National Archives was notified the same day, and the papers were handed over the following morning. Some of the documents were designated as ‘sensitive compartmented information,’ which means they were classified above Top Secret (Biden’s Classified Document Stash).”

As pointed out by the Wall Street Journal in the above article, this is rather poor timing for Biden, as well as being somewhat comical. It puts the Left into a rather uncomfortable position, where they are forced to either push forward with charges against Biden, or walk away from the current press against Trump for his own papers held past his tenure as President. 

There are differences between Trump and Biden’s cases, however, and they’re not small. I’m sure someone with a better grasp of the political system will do a more involved discussion of the details, but let’s look at some basics. 

The Democrats and the Left are currently downplaying Biden’s role in holding onto the papers. The story currently being pushed is that Biden’s lawyers discovered the papers, ones that Biden didn’t even know about, and that they immediately handed them over to the National Archives (How the Discovery of Classified Files in Biden’s Office Compares With the Trump Case). Trump, as we all know, hid the papers, fought returning them, and impeded investigations into his holding onto the papers in question.

What the Dems and the Left are leaving out is more interesting to me. Whatever your personal feelings are on Trump holding onto classified documents and fighting their return, he had a right to see and hold them. As President, and as a former President, it is entirely legal and permissible for him to read them, have them, and hold onto them. Those rights are outlined in the Presidential Records Act. 

Vice Presidents are not covered by the PRA. Biden did not, at any time prior to being named President himself, have any right to see, hold, or keep those documents. His being President now does not give him retroactive permission to have the papers in question, either.

The Left’s argument is that Trump was hiding “vast numbers” of papers, whereas Biden was only guilty of holding onto a few. Trump didn’t want to return his papers, and Biden’s people reported it immediately. Those differences are what the Left want you to see (Biden classified docs vs. Trump classified docs: What’s the difference?).

The problem is quality versus quantity, however. The files that were found in Biden’s old storage closet were ones from the Obama Presidency, files he should never have had. Sources (unnamed, see the articles linked below) say that they had to do with the Ukraine and were not all that important.

The question not being asked by the Left is, why did Biden have classified files about the Ukraine? On its own, it doesn’t feel like much. When you bring in the very real possibility that Biden’s son was involved at that time with the Ukraine, and the events surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop information, it suddenly makes much more sense.

It points to a rather nepotistic abuse of power. 

That abuse of power is vastly different than the boxes of papers Trump didn’t feel like returning to the National Archives. But no one on the Left wants to talk about that. In fact, if you bring it up, if you talk about how Biden should be treated the same way Trump was, there’s a sudden lull in conversation. It’s not the same, you’re told. 

They’re correct. It’s not the same. I see no evidence that Trump was doing anything nefarious with the boxes of papers he had. While I wish he’d just returned them to the National Archives, I can easily put that off as his personal pig-headdedness. Biden, on the other hand, should never have had access to those papers to begin with. Now that is something that everyone ought to be investigating.

Heuristic Hagar