Rant

An interesting thing is happening within the circuit courts, those judges who are tired of seeing the majority rubber stamp any infringement a state wants, are speaking out.

They are taking their lead from Thomas, Van Dyke and others who have spoken up to shed light on just how badly these rogue judges are behaving.

This explains the game. The majority of the Bianchi merits panel found for The People. The minority refused to write his dissent. Because of “traditions”, the merits panel did not issue their opinion, instead waiting for the dissent.

Meanwhile, the Fourth was waiting for another 2A case to show up. That would be Price.

The Price panel decided the “plain text” question was worthy of considerable attention. Since Mr. Price was charged with a criminal act, the panel decided he wasn’t a part of The People. To use their words:

Boy is it cleaned up.

1) It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. —New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) So the fourth is going down the path that the definition of “The People” in the Second Amendment is a subset of The People as used in the rest of the Constitution.

2) In common use, was not part of “plain text”. It was a reference to Heller‘s work, which states that the state cannot ban weapons in common use.

This is essential to note and understand. A weapon that is in common use cannot be banned. This does not mean that weapons that are NOT in common use may be banned. If a weapon is not in common use, then the government bears the burden of proving that there are firearms regulation in this Nation’s history which match the modern-day infringement.

3) “Shall not be infringed?” That appears to be pretty clear-cut.

There are 84 pages of this twisting of language in Price all to get to the point where they say “The plain text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the proposed conduct.”

The gist of this argument is the self-centered arrogance of the Fourth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit. When Justice Thomas wrote: Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. …—id. at 10 he did not claim that any of the Circuit Courts got it right, just nearly so.

Nevertheless, the Fourth circuit believes that Justice Thomas was speaking about them as having been “broadly consistent” with Heller in the past. Since they are the exception, they must have gotten it right the last time. Thus, they are correct in thinking that “plain text” has anything to do with common use.

In common use is only of use to The People. If an arm is in common use, it cannot be banned.

In Bianchi, the Fourth issued Price first, used that to justify their “We were broadly consistent before, we still are.”

So, in the minds of the Fourth circuit court, “plain text” is a sophisticated problem requiring detail examination of the etymological meaning of each word and phrase, ignoring the Heller Court doing exactly that, for them.

Right now, there are literally hundreds of women on FaceBook and other social media that are telling “all women” that we are being treated like livestock. I can’t make this shit up, folks.

Yes, absolutely. As a female human being in America, I am currently:

• being held in a cage
• restricted from movement
• bred against my will
• used in breeding programs
• abused and neglected
• being used for someone else’s profit
• living in windowless sheds
• being denied normal behaviors
• being used for meat and milk, and perhaps eggs

Seriously? What the hell. In what way is any woman in this country being treated like livestock? For fuck’s sake. Yes, I’m ranting.

I have MAJOR problems with statements like this. So many problems. Let me innumerate them.

Read More

Last week, a friend of mine who lives in London, England, posted the above image. The friend is someone I’ve known for some 30 years, maybe longer, though we’ve never met face to face. She works as a “lay therapist,” which is someone who tries to help when medical help is lacking due to there being too many mental health emergencies and not enough mental health providers. If you think it’s bad in America, try Britain. Oy. She’s a GOOD person, though she is fully Left. She walks her talk, which is more than I can say about a lot of people. I respect her. But last week, I wanted to beat my head against a wall, I was so frustrated.

I saw the image, and immediately wrote the following:

She then spent a couple of hours telling me all sorts of things that justified the idea that all of the above statements mean no. I am flabbergasted. I could maybe see “stop” as being the same as “no” because it’s a firm and complete statement. But the rest of them? They don’t mean no.

When I tell my partner, “Wait…” I’m not telling him no. I’m telling him… oh yeah, WAIT. Give me a minute. The word has a meaning, and the meaning is to delay an action. Nothing in there about no.

When I tell someone that I hurt, it doesn’t mean no. It means that I have a pain, and that pain could be physical, spiritual, emotional, or mental. None of that means no.

If I tell someone, “Not now,” that’s a very clear message that maybe later we will do whatever. That’s most definitely NOT NO.

I went on to say:

“Sorry, this is one of those big bugaboos for me. Mitigating language is so horribly destructive of relationships as a whole. It gets us into really bad places. It’s fine to tell someone you’re hurting; that’s how they learn not to hurt you. But if you say NO, that should be that. Period, end of statement. Think of it as a ‘safeword,’ if you like. Ow is not a safeword but it is an indication that something might need to change. NO is a safeword – all activity stops. There’s no mitigating with ‘no.’ I firmly believe that all this mitigating language has been brought in by people who don’t want to hear or use the word ‘no.’ The problem is, ‘no’ is the correct word to use. And we must teach people how to use it, and to use it when they need.”

I think I was being pretty clear. She insisted that the meme was clear. I gave clear examples that the meme was not clear. I don’t understand at all.

I suspect that this is a (very mild) example of the Leftist speech you all sometimes talk about. Words don’t mean what they meant, the meanings change daily, you can never know what something means. That’s just wrong. And this is someone who is perceived as a professional (and IS a professional, as she underwent an awful lot of intensive training for the position, and as near as I can tell, she’s generally very helpful and good at her job), telling broken people how to communicate. How is this helpful? What’s wrong with using the clear language?

How are young people supposed to go about their lives, when they’re taught that all these things mean no? Especially women! I’m sorry, but women MUST learn how to say no, firmly. Mitigating language is not going to help any woman, ever. The only thing mitigating language is good for, is when you’re letting someone down gently when you’re firing or laying them off, or something of that kind. Or telling them that the dress really does make their ass look big. THOSE are moments when mitigating language is acceptable. But when you’re expecting clear and concise communication, like during a sexual act? My gawd!

Yes, I’m being all horrified over here. I don’t understand how this is even a discussion, never mind an argument. We’ve been pushing the “no means no” thing for ages, and we don’t need all this mitigating language messing up a lesson that’s already apparently horrendously difficult to learn.

Good grief.

I’ve talked in the past about how I didn’t feel that Trump was “presidential” in his first election bid and term. I stand by that. He lost his temper a number of times, was rude and unruly, and generally was not the sort of person I wanted to hold up proudly as “my country’s leader.” Whether he did good things or not, he did not act presidential nearly enough.

In the past month, I have been watching Trump. He has learned from his first term, in my opinion. He’s toned down a lot of the rhetoric. He isn’t being as rude, while continuing to be as strong and steadfast. I can stand behind that. I admit, I still don’t like listening to his campaign speeches, because they tend to ramble. But at least they’re in complete sentences and refer to actual things that happened or might happen, and aren’t fictions like Biden.

On the other hand, we have Harris. Harris has taken things to a WHOLE new level:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNXjyMkF/

You will have to click it to see it, I believe. I am just blown away at even the idea of someone twerking at a presidential rally. Really? The bar has been lowered to the point where we’re all wearing snorkels to avoid drowning. I can’t even.

Trump has his moments. While I appreciated his humor at the Black Journalist interview he did, the commentary about Harris “becoming black” will come back to haunt him (and us). That’s the kind of humor you share at home, and not in a massive stadium. The zinger isn’t worth it. Other than that one-off, I thought Trump did very well at the interview, especially considering the venue. He was polite, he answered their questions even when they seemed to want to talk over him while he was doing so, and he largely kept on topic. I haven’t watched the entire thing, but I’ve seen about half of it in clips. I was impressed. It’s on YouTube in its entirety if you care to watch it.

Then there’s Harris. She’s going on national tv to tell people that she wants him to “say it to her face.” I personally think he probably isn’t debating her right now because she is not THE candidate. That won’t happen until the end of August, at the DNC. She’s running as if she is the choice, but that is not yet set in stone. Her presenting herself as the presumptive choice is bold.

I’m running out of steam. I’m sad at the circus going on. I’m sad to see people that I consider close friends, drinking the koolaid of the left and believing things that are outright lies.

I just do not get it. At least that’s what I keep saying. That isn’t as true as it used to be, but I still don’t thoroughly understand it.

We run risk assessments all the time. Most people do a shitty job of it. They conflate probability of occurring with the amount put at risk.

As an example, consider the following bet, “I will bet you this $10 bill at a 3:1 payout.” That means I will get back $30 if I win, and I will forfeit my $10 bet if I lose.

If you can afford to lose $10, you might take that bet.

Now, let’s say that you have a 1 in 4 chance of winning. Over the course of 8 games, you will win 2 times for $60. You will have bet $80. The house walks away with $20.

This is how casinos make their money. It is not always this obvious, but it is the same thing.

Now consider a second type of bet, one where you are betting $10 on the flip of a coin against $10. The odds and the payout are a match. Over an extended number of plays, you will come out even.

Would you be willing to bet $100 on the flip of a coin? $1000? $100,000? Your life?

This is risk assessment. It is looking at both the probability of the event taking place and the “cost” of the event.
Read More

From Miguel’s substack, with permission.

At least from the regular Venezuelans.

At this writing, the 2024 presidential elections in Venezuela are in the can and Maduro seems to have “secured” his re-election. Protest about the fraud committed did happen, and the government was swift arresting over 1,500 so far who are slotted to go to prison ipso facto without pretty much legal niceties, plus also announced that other thousands of so members of the “Opposition” and protesters are pre-approved to be also arrested and given free “vacations.”

So, what happened to what used to be Latin America’s most vibrant and stable Democracy? What led to Venezuela becoming just another Communist dictatorship? I am going to try to give you a short explanation and for that, let’s begin to kill misconceptions.

Number one: In the 203 years of existence, Venezuela was a democracy (of sorts) for only 3 decades, from the 1960s to the 1990s. Before that and thereafter, the country was run by Caudillos (Strong Men) who fought, bullshitted or bullied themselves into the Presidency. Democracy was a short-lived experiment that was eventually was used by the Left to vote itself into the power they could not obtain by the traditional revolutionary methods of the 50s. Were there elections during those old times? Yes, but again, they were either vaudeville show elections except in one case where the elected President was kicked out by a revolutionary Leninist coalition who were themselves promptly removed by the Military which took over the control of the nation and kept it.

So, the historical DNA of the country is firmly programmed to accept Caudillos and a central government directing every aspect of your life. And with that comes the sad fact that such government will implement and use whatever force and persuasion it requires to remain in power. Scaring and programming people into submission is standard operational procedure: “Violence doesn’t solve anything” and “If you defy the “law”, we will use violence upon you and yours” are not contradictory terms in Venezuela or the rest of Latin America, they are just facts of life we learned to live with.

Number two: I don’t recall when exactly, but in the very late 1980s or early 1990s, there was an article in a major newspaper in Venezuela proudly announcing that the biggest employer in the country was officially the government. More than half of working Venezuelans derived their income to feed their families from the people in power, and that meant voting against the government meant voting against your wallet, voting against keeping your kids fed and a roof above your family and medication for grandma. Politics no longer was about ethereal principles like “Freedom” but real issues like having a job and not going hungry. And even if you were not on the Country’s payroll, more than likely you would be providing goods and services to those who were or to the government companies themselves. And people not only will they not fight against the government, but they will also gladly denounce to the proper intelligence authorities if they suspect anybody wants to do something against their security. Yes, they will snitch you at Warp 5 and have zero remorse about it because you are messing with their lives.

Number three: Historically, Venezuela always had Caudillos that promised radical changes in our way of living, swearing they would improve them. People would throw support at them, but most ended up failures, and a very few were successful, only for the new man in the Presidential Chair to become just another version of the previous occupant. “Mismo musiu con diferente cachimbo” is an old Venezuelan saying roughly translated to: same guy with a different pipe AKA Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. People eventually get tired of broken promises, so when somebody comes along with visions of wealth and prosperity if you join him, the recently burned just ignore them. It takes time, usually almost a generation, to get a fresh crop of hopeful idiots to support a “change” that could end up in a successful transfer of power. The Left tried to get in the hard way in the early 1960s after the transition from a military regime to Democracy and failed because both people were sick of the instability, Castro had shown his colors, and true Democracy was the newest-coolest product in the market for Venezuela. But The Left knows how to play the long game and started to infiltrate universities and the Media with their “light version” of themselves (Me a Communist? Never! I believe in social change and equality like a good Christian!”) but never lost track of the country’s DNA and hence comes Comandante Hugo Chavez and his coup attempt.

The coup failed… and not. Long story short: by the mid-1990s, thanks to a combination of corrupt practices, economic downturns and a very successful long-term campaign to undermine the country’s morale, people were once again ready for a “change” in the hands of a Caudillo. What the failed coup gave Chavez was a constant mention in the Media that amazingly fast went from negative for the people who got killed, to “we understand why he did it” to “Maybe he is the change we need” and people simply agreed with what been planted all along in their minds for many decades.

And not only did they vote Chavez into power but voted to give him more power: He was able to dispose of the Supreme Court by popular vote. The same vote gave him the OK to change the constitution, control of the Election Council and grant himself re-elections for as long as he wanted. I laugh when I hear people now complain about how it was possible that Maduro rigged the elections, since Venezuela’s elections have been worse than a rigged reality-tv show before the Millennium kicked in.

The above is a very simplified summary, and I am going to condense it even more: If the government feeds me and can kill me without consequence, why should I try to depose it to install a new set of assholes that probably won’t do any better?

One last thing:

“You can vote your way into socialism, but you’re going to have to shoot your way out.”

We know this is true. They are willing to kill to remain in power, and killing is the only way to remove them. But then you read this:

Just a couple of reminders: Peaceful demonstrations only work if the targets of those demonstrations are moral and scrupulous people.
The Left mastered the “peaceful demonstrations” and knows its weaknesses.

Until I see the stacks of pro-government bodies piled high on the streets of Caracas, I won’t believe that change is actually happening. And I doubt this will happen in my lifetime.

— Miguel Gonzalez © 2024.

If you are reading this, you are part of the 1% richest people in the world.

I can confidently say that because there are so many people living in object poverty. Not poverty as defined by the government, but actual poverty.

The government likes to define poverty in relative terms. This means that when you are part of a rich society, you can be “below the poverty line” and still be richer than most of the world’s population could ever dream of becoming.

If you are reading this, you have a device capable of connecting to the Internet, that makes you wealthy.

But wealth is not just money, it is also goods. I do not consider myself or my family to be well-off. We struggle to pay our monthly bills, we struggle to support our children’s quest for a collage education. It feels like we are always just one paycheck from disaster.

Read More

The state is constantly looking for weasel words in Supreme Court opinions to further their arrogant subjugation of their subjects. We see this in how they misconstrued the language of —No. 114 Dominic Bianchi v. Anthony Brown, No. 21-1255, slip op., n. 2 (4th Cir.) to claim that the Second Amendment only protects militias.

We see this when they misconstrue —United States v. Price, No. 22-4609, slip op. at 11,12 (4th Cir.) to mean that “presumptively constitutional” means that any infringement is constitutional.

We see this when they misconstrue —New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) to mean that anyplace can be designated as a “sensitive location” where infringements are required. Like defining all of Times Square as a sensitive place.

The state is constantly looking for any words that could be taken to mean that infringement is allowed.

—id. at 10 has far too many weasel words for the state to latch onto. Bad facts make for bad laws.

Schoenthal v. Raoul in Chicago shows exactly this.

After Rahimi was issued, the state in every case rushed to bring that opinion into their arguments. Not because their case had anything to do with individuals found to be credible threat of physical violence to another who had a court of law issue a domestic violence restraining order against them, but because they wanted to use the weasel words.

In Schoenthal the state wanted a status hearing to set a supplemental briefing schedule. This is the official way to get more arguments before the court, regardless of the current status of the case.

The state says it is a joint motion. This is true in fact, but not in spirit.

The state wants to brief the court regarding how wonderful Rahimi is for their case. The plaintiffs (good guys) just want equal time, if the court allows the state to submit additional arguments.

The judge said “No”.

Now, the language the state is trying so hard to get into the record is suggest a law trapped in amber Missing citations for UETRMP2L. This is where the Supreme Court explained how to do regulation matching. The state latches on to “it doesn’t have to be an exact match, so our horrible, not even close, matches should be allowed.”

So the state made a second motion to brief Rahimi to the court. This time they included the language they felt would save their case.

The judge said “no” a second time.

So the state, instead of requesting permission to brief the court on Rahimi, submitted a notice of supplemental authority regarding Rahimi. This was not the simple, “We wish to bring to the court’s attention that Rahimi was decided, no, this was a short brief with the state’s arguments.

Therefore, the court said “no” again, a bit more forcibly.

Me or your lying eyes?

For the last four years, the only time I heard about Kamala was when she had messed up, again. It is a feature of her actions, she messes up.

She was assigned to close the border. Joe used Obama’s term, “Tsar”. As in “Border Tsar.”

Today, I’m being told, “Kamala was never the border tsar. That’s just a Trump lie.”

This is where we are today.

As one X pundit put it, “How have you explained the ‘fine people hoax?'” The consensus was that it wasn’t worth the time or effort. That even if you did manage to get them to acknowledge it is a hoax, within a couple of weeks, they will have forgotten.

This is getting crazy.

Ok, but what does that mean? More importantly, what does it mean to us?

To get an example of cognitive dissonance in “practice”, dig up “I Mudd” from Star Trek. At the end, the crew destroys the androids by setting up cognitive dissonance in their “logical” brains.

One such method was Spock saying to one android “I love you”, and to another, identical android “But I hate you.” When the androids point out that they are identical, Spock replies, “Exactly.”

The left has been trained to exist in a state of cognitive dissonance.

Read More