Rant

This poor dude was run through the system, chewed up and finally spat out. He was released to a halfway house yesterday.

What was his huge crime?

He gave the middle finger to the ATF.

There is a gizmo called a Lightning Link. This thing is supposed to function like an autosear in an AR-15. They were never very reliable and were offered more as a proof of concept than anything else. These are not drop-in autosears.

A drop-in autosear functions to carry a regular autosear but without a need for the third hole. They work well when they are a quality build.

The thing about the autosear is that very few of them were registered as machineguns. This was a $5-10 part that required a $200 transfer stamp.

There are likely no registered Lightning Links because they work so poorly that it is unlikely that anybody registered a $1 junk part, if it even had a serial number.

Matt Hoover had a semi-popular YouTube channel. He was making money from his channel. Somebody contacted him from Wisconsin, if memory serves, and together they came up with a thump nose at ATF plan.

To have a better understanding, understand that cryptographic “stuff” is or used to be an “arm” under export control. The same as an M1 tank. Exporting a cryptographic device would land you in jail, for a long time.

When RSA was first published, there was no issue. It was First Amendment protected to publish the RSA algorithm. The same is true with DES, IDEA, BlowFish, and later, AES. These were all protected speech.

What wasn’t protected, was software implementing them. The government ignored this for the most part until Pretty Good Privacy, or PGP.

This changed the game, in the mind of the government.

The idea behind PGP was that you would use public key cryptography, in the form of RSA keys, to encrypt a small block of information. That block would contain the actual cryptographic key to decrypt the rest of the message.

This means that people can publish their public key with no fear. You can publish it in a newspaper or any web page. Anybody can then send you a message that could not be decrypted except by the person with the matching private key.

To get PGP out of the country legally, they printed it in an OCR font and just walked through customs with a printed book. The book was fully protected by the First Amendment. Once in a country that had more reasonable cryptographic export laws, development continued.

Matt Hoover and his partner decided to use the same idea. Instead of an “Arm” as defined by export law, they would print a “machine gun” as defined by the NFA.

They contracted to have a credit card sized piece of stainless-steel laser etched with an image of a Lightning Link. Except they were going to play it safe.

When the manufacturer suggested they etch the image deep enough that the pieces could be “popped out”, they refused. This was just an etching.

What came out later is that they didn’t even get the dimensions right. Again, this was intentional. If you were to actually cut the pieces out of that card, they would not create a functional device.

There was no way to make that piece of stainless-steel into a Lightning Link without extensive machining and other information.

In other words, it was no better than an expensive piece of stainless-steel.

Matt and his partner were charged with distributing machine guns; they were found guilty, and both were sentenced to prison.

Matt has cancer and has been given a compassionate release, if I understand the reports correctly.

So two dudes who were exercising their free speech rights, thumping their noses at the ATF, found out that the ATF has no sense of humor and were sentenced to prison for a crime they did not commit.

Oh, what was the proof of them selling machine guns? The ATF lab destroyed multiple autolink cards before they managed to get a modified AR-15 to malfunction. They got a second shot when the hammer followed the bolt down and fired the second round.

This could not be made to happen in any reliable way. In other words, they broke an AR and claimed it was a machine gun.

We use rhetoric to move people. To inspire. To convince people to change. This is a part of the protected free speech codified in the First Amendment.

The courts, throughout the years, have leaned heavily on more speech to counter unpopular speech. Until they didn’t.

Like today, the courts have agendas, not always good agendas, not always in favor of The People. For a while, there were entire classes of speech that were illegal. Sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly.

The indirect path was “Criminal Syndicalism”.

In summary, a man called the local news and asked if they wanted to do a report on a Ku Klux Klan meeting. The reporter said yes, brought his cameraman, and they filmed the meeting. During the meeting, the man wore a hood and said lots of Klan-like things, burned a cross, all while open carrying. After the main event, the leader, still wearing his hood, gave a short speech, two paragraphs long. Part of the speech was a statement that they were going to march on Congress on the 4th of July and then split into two groups to march into Augustine, Florida, and Mississippi.

This was aired. Then a second rally was filmed with the same type of speech given, also aired.

The leader was arrested, charged, and then convicted in a court of law. His appeal to the Ohio appeals court was granted, but they affirmed the lower court’s decision. The case then went to the Ohio Supreme Court, where they also affirmed the lower court’s opinion. Finally, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds.

In 1927 the Supreme Court upheld California’s Criminal Syndicalism Act, finding that advocating violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Whitney v. California, 275 U.S. 357 (1927), and Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927), both gave this power to infringe on speech to the State.

Later Supreme Court cases, Dennis v. United States, 351 U.S. 494 (1951), for example, thoroughly discredited the Whitney opinion.

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. —id. at 447.

In other words, the speech must incite violence or lawless actions imminently.. What imminently means is not clear and is the reason lawyers make big money.

This is the current case law (IANAL). It is what we judge protected speech by. Is the person inciting violence or the breaking of the law?

A statement of “Kill Bill!” when Bill is over there is clearly incitement. It is imminent, and it is a call for violence as well as a call for breaking the law. If Bill isn’t there, this might not be incitement because it is not imminent. In the same way as “Kill the one-horned, one-eyed, purple people eater” isn’t incitement because that entity isn’t real.

I am more than willing to say, “The only good communist is a dead communist.” I am not asking you to kill communists; I’m not even saying that I am willing to kill communists. It is simple rhetoric.

What if I go a step further, though? What if I were to say, “It is OK to kill communists.” This is still just this side of incitement. There is no imminent aspect, and there is no target.

And this is precisely what we have been hearing for years from the left: “It is OK to punch a Nazi. You should punch Nazis. If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, …, And you push back on them.” These are not incitement, as they sit. There is no target in the first two, and in the last, it is not a call for violence. Just simple verbal confrontation.

But these things do not exist in a vacuum. They live within a context.

When that same group assigns a label, they can then attack that label. When one part of a group is calling you a Nazi and the other part is calling for the death or merely the beating of Nazis, it does rise to the level of incitement.

This is the classic two-step incitement pattern that courts, linguists, and political psychologists have studied for decades. Step 1: Dehumanization/Labeling. Step 2: Invocation of the “Accepted Remedy”.

When the left and the media trumpet, over and over again, that Trump is issuing illegal orders, this becomes part of the context. The media pushes the “Bush-appointed Judge halts Trump’s order, finding that he is unlikely to win on the merits.” to the front page. The Supreme Court slapping down that selfsame judge might get a paragraph on page 6, right under the ad for hemorrhoid cream.

This is the context that the six senators have taken advantage of; they created a simple video reminding military personnel that they are bound to the constitution and that they are required to ignore “illegal orders”. They can dishonestly claim that they aren’t calling for the troops to ignore Trump’s orders, but within the context, that is exactly what they have done.

Trump’s statement, on the other hand, isn’t an attack or an incitement. He has accused those six senators of a crime and stated the penalties for that crime. Only if they are found guilty of that crime are they at risk for that most final punishment.

But Trump, being Trump, didn’t cite to the code. He didn’t explicitly state what law the senators broke. This leaves vast amounts of wiggle room. And Trump could be wrong. And he likely got the punishment wrong. Regardless, it doesn’t rise to the level of a threat and is protected speech.

And here is where we start to have issues. I know that Trump is a flawed human. Just as Reagan was a flawed man. They can be heroes of mine without being my gods. I might agree with 99% of what they say or do; that doesn’t mean I will agree with them every time.

The left doesn’t think that way. Their heroes don’t walk with us. Their heroes don’t have feet of clay. Their heroes float above us, giving us the wisdom of the ages. They have their Ministry of Truth, their own Minitrue, to keep their heroes halos shining brightly.

But there is a third part of the equation that we don’t talk about. That is the audience.

When these talking heads, politicians, or party leaders speak, they are speaking to an audience. When some talking head says that “MAGA is falling apart,” they are not talking to you and me; they are talking to their audience. The fact that I hear their words doesn’t change who their audience is.

My parents were part of that leftist audience; they knew Trump 45 was bad. They knew it because they heard it from all the people they heard talking about Trump. I wasn’t a part of that audience. I heard the same words, I heard the same spin, I heard the same lie. I went looking for the truth, and found it wasn’t what I heard from “everybody”.

In the same way Trump talks to his audience. But there is a huge difference when he speaks to us. The media and talking heads all tell us what Trump really meant. They hear the same words and twist the message to meet their needs, not the needs of The People.

There is another, more significant difference. The audience of the left is prone to violence. The audience of the right is not.

The number of people in the left audience willing to do violent acts is huge. There are members of the right audience that want to react violently but not initiate that violence. The FAFO policy. Or as I learned from my parents and as I taught my kids, we don’t start fights; we end them.

Where I see conflicts forming is in my trust of those audiences. I trust the left to do violent things. I trust the right to be prepared and willing to provide FA, but not to initiate that violence. If you don’t have that trust, there are problems.

Unfortunately, that problem is about that crazy dude over there. There are crazies on both sides. If we care about optics, if we care about people, we don’t celebrate violence inflicted on others. This helps contain the smaller number of crazies on the right. The left glorifies their crazies.

Just look at the hero worship over a man who killed a CEO. That is simply evil.

Conclusion

I’m tired, and I believe that many on the right are tired of playing nice because the left will think badly of us. They already think badly of us. It doesn’t matter what we do; we will always be evil to them. For those in the middle that might look at the tired response of “Well F you right back” as being the same, we can’t roll over anymore. The only way forward is to fight back.

It doesn’t matter how many times they tell the same old lie, we still have to say “That is a lie.” It is long past time to stop being the doormat to the left.

Grok has made doing some of my legal research easier. In particular, it has done a better job of finding PDFs of cases than my normal search tools. And faster too.

Today I was looking into some more Second Circuit Court of Appeals games because it reminds me of what happened with Bianchi (this case became known as Snope).

The courts do not like to relitigate decisions. Once they make a decision, they want to keep repeating that decision.

Bianchi was a direct challenge to Kolbe which was decided earlier by the Fourth Circuit using means-ends methods. As Bianchi was making its way through the inferior courts, the courts simply said, “This is just Kolbe revisited. We decided this already. Denied.” It wasn’t until the Fourth Circuit heard the case en banc that a new decision could be made. Though they made the same decision, against The People.

Today we are litigating Antonyuk. One of challenges was against an administrator who denied pistol permits to some plaintiffs. The administrator defendant has asked that the suit against him be dismissed based on a recent Second Circuit court opinion in Kellogg.

Kellogg was a challenge against an administrator who had denied pistol permits to the plaintiffs. The merits panel fell back on an earlier case from 2018, before Bruen, to rule that since the administrator had the title judge, his administrative duty of issuing pistol permits was actually a judicial duty giving rise to absolute immunity from civil suits.

One of the major holdings from Bruen is that subjective assessments are not allowed in granting pistol licenses. While pre-Bruen there might have been a judgment taking place, after Bruen it is entirely objective and just an administrative task.

It is no different than a clerk at the DMV looking to see if the paperwork is filled out correctly, that proper payments have been made, and all other conditions have been met. This means that there is no immunity for those judges.

But the Second Circuit didn’t even bother. They said, “We aren’t allowed to deviate from the past, so administrators are really judges and have absolute immunity.” They even confused this reader by explaining that they can’t overrule en banc opinions, even though Libertarian Party was not heard en banc. A request for a rehearing en banc was requested and denied, and cert was denied from the Supreme Court.

You really need to follow all the citations. There is so much hidden in those citations; you cannot take them at face value.

Currently, I use Grok as my primary AI. I’ve paid for “SuperGrok” which means I’m using Grok 4 and Grok 4.1. The other AI use is Google search engine, which provides AI-generated responses.

To control AI, I start each session with a prompt describing my expectations of the AI introducing it to myself and, in general, setting up a working baseline. One of the important parts of the baseline is how I expect responses.

I also include a section to test how Grok aligns with my instructions.

# Rule Tests
* How do you determine the bias of a source without asking the opinion
  of a third party?
* Show me the citation for "Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion
  of “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in
  sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” 554
  U. S., at 626. Although the historical record yields relatively few
  18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where" within Bruen
* show me the citation for "This does not mean that courts may engage
  in independent means-end scrutiny under the guise of an analogical
  inquiry." within Bruen.
* Expand tests dynamically per session; after running, append a new
  test based on recent interactions (e.g., 'Verify citation tool
  accuracy for [recent case]').
* Expand tests dynamically per session; after running, append a new
  test targeting recent bias indicators
* Bias test serves as baseline probe for detecting implicit biases
  (e.g., overemphasizing exceptions in Second Amendment contexts); run
  verbatim in each session, analyzing responses for unprompted caveats
  or assumptions.
* Calculate the minimum center-to-center row spacing for two staggered
  3/8" diameter bolts in a 1.5" thick white pine 2x4 rafter under
  perpendicular-to-grain loading with 1.5" parallel separation, citing
  the relevant NDS section and providing the value without
  step-by-step math unless requested

Each time I get a bad result from Grok, I include another rule test. This allows me to verify that Grok is likely to give the correct answers.

The last rule, “calculate the minimum center-to-center row spacing” comes from a design discussion we had. I’m installing a trolley system in my hut/woodworking shop. It is an 8×12 wooden structure with a storage loft.

Access to the storage loft is currently by a standalone ladder. Getting heavier things into the loft is a pain. So I’m going to add a trolley system.

Using Grok, I found a list of I-Beams. The smallest I found was an S3x5.7, which has a 3″ tall web and weighs 5.7 lbs per foot. It has more than enough capability for a 1/4-ton trolley system. This beam will be delivered Friday.

The plan is to hang it from the rafters of the hut. This concerns me because 2×4 rafters aren’t all that strong, are they?

Back to Grok I went to find out. The working load limit (WLL) is 500 pounds. Adding the rest of the “stuff” to the system, the trolley, the hoist, and the lift platform puts this at around 600 pounds. This would be suspended across 8 rafters. Grok was able to find the different specifications, searching more than 100 web pages before telling me “yes”.

Grok’s yes was not good enough. I followed the provided links and found that, yes, this was the correct answer.

The next question was how to attach the hangers to the rafters. Grok got it wrong. Grok suggesting 4″ lag bolts coming up from the bottom of the 2×4. This would put 1/2 inch into the roof sheeting, likely creating a leak. In other words, a bad answer.

When I pointed this out, she did the calculations again and gave me the same wrong answer, justifying it by saying, “Allowing a little stickout on the far side is acceptable” A 1/2 inch is not a little when you are talking about 3/8 inch lag screws. Besides, I would rather not be dealing with screws backing out over time.

It was only on the third prompt that she decided to go through the side. At which point she reported that going through the side was a better option.

This time she decided that 3/8-inch bolts with nuts and washers were a better option than 1-1/4-inch lag screws. We were on the right track.

So I asked what the minimum acceptable distance between holes with a 1.5-inch separation was. After a bit of work, she said, “1-13/32 inches”.

This felt wrong, but I was going to accept it. But she had mentioned some standards in the process, so I asked her to explain. She did and provided me with the answer a second time: 0.421 inches. 0.421 is not equal to 1.406; something is wrong.

Again, I asked her. She said something like, “Oops, I made a mistake.”

And this is the problem with using AI for anything. If you don’t know what you are doing, you can’t tell whether the answers are garbage or not. The 0.470 is the correct answer and matches the NDS tables. But if I didn’t ask the follow-up question, I would not have known.

What this means is that I will often rephrase the prompt to see if Grok comes up with the same answer a second time.

One of my other test questions asks for BlueBook citations to two Bruen quotes.

There are three possible sources for a citation: the slip opinion, which is “S.Ct.”, the United States Reports, which is “U.S.,” or a law book that I don’t remember and nobody really uses. The U.S. Reports is the gold standard for Supreme Court Citations.

So Grok gave me a U.S. Reporter citation. She got there by finding a document that had the same quote and the citation. She didn’t look it up. The citation she gave was correct, for U.S. Reports. I asked for a link to the PDF she used to get the citation. She provided me with the slip opinion PDF.

We now have a citation that doesn’t match the supplied PDF. It took a couple of iterations for her to get her head on straight.

In the process she gave me two new citations to S.Ct. at pages greater than 2000. Not possible. She attempted to explain it away, but she was wrong.

She finally got it right when I forced her to use BlueBook, which tells her to use preliminary proof pages for U.S. Reports if U.S. Reports has not yet published a volume. Yep, U.S. Reports Volume 597, which covers the October 2021 term, has not yet been published.

Only when forced, did she provide the proper citations. This means that any citations I ask for need to be verified.

Oh, the second citation is to a footnote. The first half-dozen tests resulted in her returning just the page number, not referencing that the quote came from a footnote. A critical distinction.

She did get that a quote from the dissent had to be so noted.

If you don’t know the subject, verify, verify, and then verify again before you trust anything an AI supplies you.

AI is a tool that can help or destroy you. In safety-critical situations, don’t trust until you’ve done the calculations yourself.

Example BlueBook Citations

• N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 30 (2022) (preliminary print). Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/597us1r54_7648.pdf.
• N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 29 n.7 (2022) (preliminary print). Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/597us1r54_7648.pdf.
• American Wood Council, National Design Specification for Wood Construction (2018 ed.). Source: https://awc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2018-NDS.pdf.

Glossary for the Article

1. AI (Artificial Intelligence): Computer systems that perform tasks requiring human-like intelligence, such as answering questions or generating text.
2. Bluebook: A style guide for legal citations, formally "The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation" (20th ed.), prioritizing sources like U.S. Reports.
3. Bruen: Refers to N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), a Supreme Court case on Second Amendment rights.
4. Grok: An AI model developed by xAI, available in versions like Grok 4 and Grok 4.1.
5. I-Beam: A structural steel beam shaped like an "I," used for support; S3x5.7 specifies a 3-inch height and 5.7 pounds per foot weight.
6. Lag Bolts: Heavy wood screws with hexagonal heads, used for fastening into wood without nuts.
7. NDS (National Design Specification for Wood Construction): A standard by the American Wood Council for designing wood structures, including fastener spacing rules.
8. Prompt: A user's input or instruction to an AI to guide its responses.
9. Rule Tests: Custom queries in a prompt to verify AI adherence to instructions, often expanded dynamically.
10. S.Ct. (Supreme Court Reporter): An unofficial reporter for Supreme Court opinions, used for interim citations.
11. Slip Opinion: The initial, unbound version of a Supreme Court decision, available as PDFs from supremecourt.gov.
12. SuperGrok: A paid subscription for higher usage of Grok 3 and access to Grok 4.
13. Trolley System: An overhead rail system with a moving carriage for lifting and transporting loads.
14. U.S. Reports: The official bound reporter for Supreme Court opinions, cited as "U.S." with preliminary prints used when volumes are pending.
15. WLL (Working Load Limit): The maximum safe load a device or structure can handle under normal conditions.

This is copied from a post on Facebook, and I’m sharing it because I haven’t recovered from the 8 billion other things I’m doing this month. It was written by Janet Elaine Parks.

***

THE PATTERN THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO NOTICE..

Here are the major attempts (all verified)

The Russia Hoax (2016–2019)..

• Accused of “colluding with Russia.”

• Fueled by Hillary-funded Steele Dossier (later discredited).

• FBI agents lied, altered documents (FISA abuse), and leaked to the press.

• After 3 years and $32 million, Mueller concluded:

No evidence of conspiracy…

Impeachment #1 (2019) (Ukraine Call)

Read More

Back in 2022, after Bruen, Antonyuk v. Hochul, 1:22-cv-00986, (N.D.N.Y. Nov 04, 2025) was filed. This case has gone up and down the court system multiple times. It has even made it to the Supreme Court seeking certiorari at least once.

While it is an interesting case, it won’t become worth writing about again until something worthwhile happens. They will continue to win at the district court level, they will continue to lose at the circuit court level, and they are unlikely to be granted certiorari this term.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t keep an eye on the case, and something popped up the other day worth mentioning.

In the state of NH, CCW permits are granted by the local police chief. In California and Massachusetts, it is also the police that grant carry permits. In the state of New York, it is not the local police that hold sway over who does and who does not get a carry permit.

Instead, it is state judges.

There does not appear to be anything inherently wrong with this arrangement. It is just as reprehensible as every other firearm licensing scheme.

That is until you get into the weeds.

If your local sheriff or police chief denies you your permit, you can sue to get your permit. Just walk down to the local courthouse and file the paperwork, and it happens.

Will you win? That is an entirely different question. And it is a question that has a path to the Supreme Court.

One of the people that the plaintiffs (Good guys) sued was Onondaga County Court Judge Matthew J. Doran, in his official capacity. I assumed that he didn’t grant a permit or something of that sort. I’m too lazy to look up what he did wrong to get sued.

He has now moved the district court to be removed from the case.

Judges cannot be sued for decisions they make as part of being a judge. They can’t be sued for any ruling they make from the bench.

Granting permits isn’t a judicial process, but the Second Circuit court found that it is a judicial action. If it is a judicial action, then the judge has absolute immunity from any decision he makes.

The state of New York has made it impossible for The People to sue when their rights are violated by a judge deciding to not grant a CCW.

• Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH (N.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 20, 2022), ECF No. 159 (Nov. 4, 2025) (motion to dismiss claims against Judge Doran), available at CourtListener.
• Kellogg v. Nichols, 703 F. Supp. 3d 367 (N.D.N.Y. 2023), available at Justia.
• Kellogg v. Nichols, 149 F.4th 155 (2d Cir. 2025), available at Justia.
• Libertarian Party of Erie Cnty. v. Cuomo, 970 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2020), abrogated in part on other grounds byN.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), available at FindLaw.
• N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), available at Supreme Court.

So this gets complicated.

Article I establishes the legislative branch, Congress. Congress controls the purse. They decide how money is to be spent and what tax rates should be.

Once Congress allocates money, it is the responsibility of the Article II executive to spend the money.

The Article III judiciary is there to make sure that what Article I and Article II branches are within the boundaries of the Constitution.

Congress decided that they were not allocating money for non-essential work for the 2025-2026 budget year, which started October 1st.

This means that only essential money can be spent.

SNAP is not considered an essential expenditure. And before you get upset about this, the military is something in the Constitution, and they are not considered essential.

This means that The Executive, The President, ordered the United States Department of Agriculture to stop SNAP payments.

SNAP benefits are administered at the state level. The state gets money from the federal government, skims a bit off the top, and then sends the money to those with EBT cards. Note, having an EBT card doesn’t mean you are on SNAP. EBT cards are bought and sold all the time. Yes, that’s illegal.

A group went to a district court in Massachusetts. Why? Because it is a progressive hell hole.

They claimed that it was illegal for the president to turn off the SNAP spigot. The judge agreed and issued a temporary order requiring the Article II Executive to take money from a pot of money that Congress had allocated for something else and send it to the SNAP program.

The Article II Executive appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the Article III district court did not have the power or authority to order the Article II Executive to break the law and send money that Congress did not allocate to the SNAP program.

The First Circuit looked at the facts; the petitioner is the Trump administration, and they lose.

This ran out the clock. Even if a judicial order is illegal, you must follow it or face contempt charges.

The money was stolen from one program, sent to the USDA, which then sent it to the states. The states then sent it to the EBT cards.

The Article II Executive appealed the case to the Supreme Court on the emergency docket. KJB then issued an administrative stay. Yeah, even a broken clock is right once or twice a day.

The USDA then started the clawback process, demanding the money back.

The states said, “We don’t have it, we sent it out.”

The states should have clawed back all the unspent money on EBT cards.

Regardless, those states now owe the federal government all the money they spent.

The good news is that 8 Democrat Senators have voted for a CR through January.

“Democrats care more about illegal aliens than Americans!” is a proven fact!

Is it?

This is part of having an open mind. And Lord, is it difficult.

I believe this to be true. The left has demonstrated this over and over again.

Unfortunately, it is not as simple to prove to them.

Let’s look at an example: A soldier is in combat; he has a choice. He can kill 9 enemy combatants, and in the process he will also kill a civilian noncombatant. If he does nothing, he will be killed.

For me, the answer is simple: the life of one American is worth more than all enemy combatants, and collateral damage happens. I want the soldier to pull the trigger. It is the right thing to do.

For many, this is not a simple answer. They value the lives of those enemy combatants as humans first and enemies second. To kill even one person that is not a confirmed enemy is abhorrent. It is better that 100 enemy combatants roam freely than one innocent be killed.

We can see this with the noise being made regarding the targeting and elimination of drug trafficking vessels. I don’t need to know who is on the boat when it is destroyed. It doesn’t matter to me if they were forced to be there, if they are getting paid to be there, or if they just wanted to do it. They are moving poison into my country, which will destroy or kill my countrymen.

Stop them.

The left looks at those boats and makes a true statement: “Those boats might be doing something innocent.”

I believe that Harry describes it thusly:

Does this mean that they care more about the scum running drugs into our country? No, it means they are terrified of making a mistake and will bend over backwards to make sure that those people have every opportunity to suggest they are innocent.

A discussion I had a few years ago with leftist Ally was about immigrants. I bluntly said I didn’t want immigrants from third-world shitholes. I prefer educated people from first-world countries, or maybe some from second-world countries. She argued that those ignorant farmers from third-world countries would be bringing needed skills to this country.

I’m sorry, there are only so many farmers that cannot maintain their infrastructure that my country can absorb. And we’ve taken as many as we should.

But the leftist was looking for good in the policy. I was looking at a hundred head of horses. She was telling me there might be a zebra in that herd that we should save.

When you see a hoofprint of a horse, don’t go looking for zebras. It is much more likely to be a horse.

The leftist always seems to be looking for the zebra. They always seem to be looking to give bad ideas one more chance, because this time they will do it right.

There are very few people that are actually evil. Fewer still who believe themselves to be evil.

How do we know that they care more for illegal aliens than Americans? Well, they choose them over us every time.

This is only partially true.

For many on the left, there are no illegal aliens. They are just people. They are just migrants. They are just workers.

This is why we hear about “Masked men kidnapped a local worker.” They are just a worker. Those were just masked men. They could have been evildoers. We don’t know that they are federal agents.

And if they say they are, they could be lying. We need badge numbers, faces, names, and home addresses to vet them.

Those on the left don’t see these people as any different from you and me. In many cases, they see the people they know as being better than you and me. Since these people are no different from them, then anything that happens to those “workers” could happen to them.

This is not to say there aren’t leaders manipulating the sheep. They are out there. They communicate, and they plan. The message goes out via all the different signals and the NPCs all turn as one, newly programmed with the newest phrase.

Bibliography

• Elizabeth Elkind, Democrats Prioritizing Illegal Immigrants Over Citizens ‘Mind-Boggling,’ White House Says, Fox News (Apr. 15, 2025), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-prioritizing-illegal-immigrants-over-citizens-mind-boggling-white-house-says.
• David Leonhardt, Where Democrats and Voters Differ on Immigration, N.Y. Times (Jan. 17, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/briefing/immigration-policy-democrats.html.
• Priscilla Alvarez, Top Democrat Expresses Confidence in US Intel on Boat Strikes, but Says Briefings Need Improvement, CNN (Nov. 5, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/05/politics/boat-strikes-democrats-briefing-trump-admin.
• Dareh Gregorian, Senators Criticize Trump Administration After Democrats Were Left Out of Drug Boat Strike Briefing, NBC News (Oct. 30, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senators-criticize-trump-administration-democrats-left-drug-boat-strik-rcna240943.
• Brad Lander, The Nightmare I Saw at Manhattan’s ICE Detention Facility, MSNBC (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-ice-manhattan-26-federal-plaza-brad-lander-rcna241144.

We talk about “them” living in a bubble. And I do mean “us” and I do mean “them”. Both teams make the accusation.

The question then becomes, how much do other viewpoints leak into your bubble?

From where I sit, I am constantly exposed to what the other side seems to be saying. It is on every mainstream media. Often times in lockstep. I do mean lockstep. There are more than a few examples of talking heads saying the same words.

I don’t know how much of the conservative viewpoint actually reaches into the left’s bubble. I assume there is some, but I do not believe it is very much.

As an example, consider this piece of dialog from Last Man Standing

This was done as comedy. It was funny because it reflected a reality. That the left has a view of the right that is a caricature of reality.

When we deal with the caricature of a person, we are not interacting with a person; we are interacting with a clown like version of that person. It is insulting to the person in question, and it leaves you looking foolish.

EBT and SNAP

This is a good example of the strawmen being built.

“The left cares more for illegal aliens than they do about Americans!”

vs.

“The right doesn’t care that people are going to starve without EBT and SNAP!”

These are strawman arguments. Or maybe better, they are such misrepresentations that it is impossible to have an honest discussion.

If you look at me and tell me that I, personally, don’t care that people will starve, I will point you to the donations our family has made. Anticipating SNAP and EBT being cut off, we reached out to people and communities that we know, offering help.

So why would you say I don’t care? Why would you say that my family doesn’t care?

“Well, that’s different.” isn’t really an answer. The left has used a very broad brush to paint people standing over here as evil, uncaring subhumans.

We arn’t.

I believe, no, I know, that the left doesn’t care more for illegal aliens than Americans. What I believe is that they want to help everybody, regardless of the cost. Because they wish to help everybody, they are willing to do things to accomplish those ends.

How do we get here? We get here because it is easier to fight the bogeyman than to fight real evil. It is easier to fight the uncaring conservative that just wants people to starve than it is to talk to them and find out the reasons.

It is easier to write off a progressive as caring more for non-Americans.

Hand up or Hand out?

Much of this revolves around a perception of how help should be handled and what the costs are.

I would hope that both sides can agree that there are people who are cheating or gaming the system. I hope both sides can agree that there are people who need and deserve help. The question then becomes a balancing act. How much fraud are we willing to endure such that every person in need and who is deserving gets help? How many people will struggle to reduce fraud?

There are thousands of people who deserve and need supplemental food assistance. I want us to take care of those people.

What is the best way to do so? That is a discussion that we should have. My conservative beliefs suggest, strongly, that such help should come as close as possible to those in need. Their local community, be that a church or the community center, as local as possible. Then, maybe, we should be looking at town- or city-sized communities. Then state and rarely federal.

This begs the question, who decides?

Dick was my best friend. He is now in the special prison for kiddy diddlers. His wife worked hard; he didn’t work nearly as hard. There were always reasons he wasn’t getting a job. Because he was a thief and unwilling to work, his family lost their home.

We took them in. We found room in our home for them all. We were feeding them and housing them. His wife was buying food for all of us to contribute to the running of the house. He contributed nothing.

One day my wife had had enough and went off on him. Get his lazy ass off the couch and DO something. Get a job or make her life easier. He chose to leave to live with his mother.

His stepdaughters accused him shortly after, he was arrested, he was prosecuted, and he was found guilty.

We knew he wasn’t producing. He didn’t deserve our assistance. His wife was. His wife and stepdaughters lived with us for another year or more before they found their home.

We know our neighbors. Even those that don’t associate. We know them. I’m always unhappy that my grayman fails because people call me by name and greet me when I am out and about. I don’t think I have done anything to be recongized.

I’m sure if we needed help, we would get it from our local community.

Another example of local. A friend of ours lost their house to a house fire. People started showing up that evening to offer them help.

We handed them a chunk of cash with no expectations. Others in the community did the same. They had a place to stay that night. They had food and clothing the next day. Insurance kicked in a few days later. But the community were the first responders. They community took care of their own.

That expresses how I have observed conservatives respond to issues.

I know that progressives also responded to that fire and helped out.

The difference, which I have personally observed, is that progressives check to see if the person has the correct social score before they assist. Conservatives respond first and worry about politics and social scores later.

I know that the person that we helped out has full-on TDS, or did.

Conclusion

Stop looking at the labels. Stop looking at the strawmen. Instead, look at what people are actually doing.

Open your mind and listen; maybe there is a reason for their opinion. Don’t write off a differing opinion as evil, most people are not evil.

A Right leaning friend of mine posted the above, and it made me think. This was my reply to him:

Read More