When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Every individual is different. The only way to manage that reality is not to manage it at all. Liberal societies historically solved this problem by allowing people to live as they wished without demanding that the entire structure of public life be rebuilt around their self-conception.
What is new--and destabilizing--is not the existence of nontraditional identities, but the insistence that the entire social order be reconstructed around them. This moment is not about tolerance. It is about authority--specifically, who has the power to define reality itself.
The argument is no longer that individuals should be left alone.
The target is not discrimination. It is constraint and the demands are total. Partial accommodation is treated as violence. Neutrality is recast as hostility. Disagreement is pathologized. None of this makes sense if the goal is coexistence.
If identity is self-created, it is endlessly revisable. If categories are oppressive, they must be continually dissolved. There is no endpoint--only escalation.
What begins with gender inevitably expands outward, because once the principle is accepted, boundary disputes never end.
This is why persuasion has given way to enforcement. When claims outrun evidence, power fills the gap. Language codes are imposed.
The danger here is not eccentricity. It is institutional dishonesty. When law and medicine are forced to deny observable reality to preserve ideological coherence, trust collapses. People can live with differences. They cannot live under systems that demand they lie--especially about things they can see with their own eyes.
Civilizations do not collapse because they fail to accommodate differences. They collapse when they lose the ability to say what is true.
Mr. Tejada is a US citizen, 58 year old husband and father of two, residing in Lawrenceville, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta.
He recently began driving for Uber to earn additional money to support his family. On the morning of January 1, he picked up 15-year-old Christian Simmons in the town of Lilburn, and drove him to Meadow Grove.
This is Christian Simmons:
Upon arriving at their destination, Mr. Simmons shot Mr. Tejada in the back, tossed his body out of the vehicle, took his cell phone, and then drove off in his car. He was apprehended by police that afternoon, based on recognition of Mr. Tejada's license plate, after Mr. Tejada's body was found face-down in the dirt by a passer-by.
As of this date, there have been no riots, no lootings, and no vigils in response to this event.
I just don't get it. It's like they are completely decoupled not just from the fundamental concept of cause-and-effect, but actually from reality itself.
Fourteen ways to steal an election with the Smartmatic (Venezuelan) machines.
Yeah I need to go back to this. Smartmatic and Dominion, controlled in part by a narco-state, were also used by China and Russia to destabilize the United States. It's really that simple.
Yep, average IQ of 68 Somali fraudsters created a sophisticated cash transfer system with hundreds of millions of dollars were shipped out of the country, WITH the Biden administration's knowledge. This money goes to Dubai, Amsterdam, back as political donations, to terrorists organizations, and who knows where else.
Damn...all 68 of those IQ's were firing on all cylinders for this scheme....
I wonder, how does it feel to be a Democrat and yet blindly vote for the people that have allowed all this to happen? What kind of pretzel logic allows this to be considered preferable to the rule of law?
I wonder, how does it feel to be a Democrat and yet blindly vote for the people that have allowed all this to happen? What kind of pretzel logic allows this to be considered preferable to the rule of law?
They love it. because:
1. white guilt
2. TDS
3. foreigners > Americans
4. tax the rich
5. climate change
1. white guilt
2. TDS
3. foreigners > Americans
4. tax the rich
5. climate change
I can definably understand the TDS. They've been force-fed the message that Orange Man is the ultimate evil for quite some time now.
And I get the "tax the rich" argument. That one has been around for generations, and continues to appeal to people who are bad at math and envious of others' success. Basic human nature there.
I understand the Climate Change argument, because again, there has been a cohesive narrative pushing it for decades, effectively disguising the underlying grift in academic lingo which appeals to those with Dunning-Krueger syndrome who like to consider themselves to be part of the intellectual elite.
I can even sort of comprehend the White Guilt because, again, effective messaging.
But I absolutely, 100%, cannot understand the "Foreigners > Americans" thing.
"Nobody accuses federal prosecutors of anti-Italian bigotry when they dismantle a crime family. There are no press conferences decrying anti-Irish prejudice when Boston gangsters get indicted. When Russian oligarchs face money laundering charges, the conversation centers on the crimes, not the ethnicity.
It makes one wonder why the difference.
The answer reveals an obvious truth about contemporary Democratic politics: certain immigrant communities have been transformed into political assets, human shields against accountability.
This isn't advocacy for immigrant communities--it's exploitation of them. By insisting that any law enforcement action targeting certain ethnic groups must be motivated by hatred rather than evidence, Democrats create a bizarre two-tiered system of justice. White criminals get prosecuted based on their actions. Minority criminals get a chorus of politicians claiming their prosecution is proof of systemic racism, regardless of guilt or innocence."
>-"An extremely effective rhetorical trick is a propaganda tactic called "preemptive framing." It involves establishing an interpretive framework before events occur to shape how people understand those events when they happen."
"We saw this when the Seditious Six Senators used a tactic called implicature--that is when the implied meaning differs from the literal statement. The Seditious Six senators were literally saying "don't follow illegal orders" (an uncontroversial truism), but the implicature is "orders from this administration are likely illegal and if you follow them, when we get in power we are going to prosecute you."
They began with using apophasis (also called paralipsis) by raising a subject by claiming not to raise it. "I'm not saying the orders will be illegal but remember you don't have to follow illegal orders." The denial plants the suggestion."
"This rhetorical combination is particularly insidious because it provides plausible deniability. If challenged, the senators can claim they were merely stating established military law--which is exactly what they are doing now. Maybe they will escape any real sanction for the act, but the timing and context make the real message unmistakable: they're priming the military to view lawful orders as potentially illegal and offering political cover for insubordination."
>-"I don't think anyone at the White House has caught on that nobody gives two fecal evacuations about Venezuela, Greenland, or Iran while there is a genuine insurrection going on in Minnesota."
>-"The right keeps trying to win arguments on the merits while the left wins by controlling which argument we're having."
Michigan Finds Non-Citizens in Jury Pool, Voter Rolls Flagged
Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini announced that his office identified 239 non-citizens summoned for jury duty over a four-month period. Jury pools are drawn from Michigan's driver's license database, which automatically registers applicants to vote unless they opt out. The state does not systematically verify citizenship, relying largely on self-reporting.
HUD Flags $84M in Improper Housing Payments to Minnesota
HUD Secretary Scott Turner announced that federal audits uncovered up to $84 million in potentially ineligible housing assistance payments made to Minnesota during the final year of the previous administration. Preliminary reviews found payments issued to deceased individuals and to recipients whose Social Security numbers could not be verified. Turner called it a "massive abuse of taxpayer dollars" that diverted aid away from families in genuine need.
The Minnesota findings are part of a broader national review that flagged billions in questionable rental assistance payments, including tens of thousands issued to deceased recipients across all states. The revelations add fuel to ongoing federal investigations into fraud across multiple assistance programs. The administration says additional audits and enforcement actions are forthcoming.
1
