When you take a step back from all of the things going on in the world, sometimes it feels like a bad movie.

I say this because there are too many "thought provoking" incidents within such a short period of time.

The probability of these events also underscores these events' likely probability as well as believability.

However, it's been observed that most people in the US are not paying attention -- not on a daily basis -- so chronology often does not consciously influence that which they perceive. Notice I say "perceive" and not watch, see, or witness. One can watch, see, or witness many events, but that doesn't mean that one has expended the time or energy to critically analyze them. As the saying goes, "Perception is reality."

Close scrutiny of "thought provoking" events usually leads to questions -- questions that might lead one to believe that the entire event doesn't follow any rational chronological outcome. If one is trying to spin a narrative, questions are not something you want to deal with. Overlapping logic, or reasoning, can result in people questioning the story that is to be sold.

Focus Groups

Those who run focus groups are all too often charlatans. They're frauds, they ask pointed questions, of their focus groups, and return an answer, and the people who hire them believe that these findings are reasonable (or at least believable to the general population). Of course, this requires those who hire focus groups to be rather far removed from "normal society" -- and they are, we already know this -- that's why they hire focus groups. People who live outside the normal sphere of life, require insight.

Political calculations are often focus grouped. That's why they are so ridiculous. Focus groups are how you end up with the ridiculous "Men for Harris" TV ad. It was so bad that people thought it was parody. They were seriously wondering how anyone paid for it -- and actually believed it would produce a positive outcome. I admit, I thought it was parody when I first saw it, I thought it was from SNL or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk4ueY9wVtA

- Man enough to lift 500[lbs] and braid the shit out of my daughter's hair

- You think I'm not man enough to rebuild a carburetor, I eat carburetors for breakfast

- I ain't afraid of bears, that's what bear hugs are for

- And I'll tell you another thing I'm sure as shit not afraid of... women...

- I'm not afraid of childless cat ladies, have all the cats you want

- Full-throated endorsement

- Man enough to admit I'm lost, even when I refuse to ask for directions

- Man enough to Raw Dog a flight

- Man enough to be emotional in front of my wife and kids

- Cry at movies, Love Actual, Goodwill Hunting, Westside Story...

Look at the comments:

The reasons that this ad is inauthentic are endless, the point is that someone -- someone on the Harris/Walz campaign -- was actually paid to come up with this ad. Never mind that they were likely trying to sink the campaign, those in charge didn't know better. Those in charge of the Harris/Walz campaign actually believed that men (or whatever they consider men) would see this, and feel encouraged to vote for a woman.

Those on the (within government) who attempt to manipulate the public are not very good at it. As a result, they hire firms who have convinced them that they are good at it, with data from focus groups and such, what we see here is the result.

Comically bad attempts at manipulating the public, by people who have never worked a real job, and truly believe that regular people are low IQ fools.

Charlie Kirk Assassination

Upon scrutiny, the narrative pushed by "the officials" as it relates to the assassination of Charlie Kirk is not believable.

It appears that no normal person has leaked video of the event. It was all "leaked" to TMZ and The New York Post. Nobody shared their private video of the event -- so there's no way to verify any of the footage that has been publicly available.

Are we to believe that an otherwise intelligent individual was planning out an assassination, studied the area and found a way to the roof without being seen, while simultaneously creating his own paper trail? Taking ridiculously long periods of time to disassemble and reassemble a gun -- multiple times -- just to leave it in a bush (wrapped in a towel) -- when he supposedly walked there with it in his pants leg? Why not just walk away with the gun in his pants leg? Why wrap it in a towel so that it would be clearly visible?

The supposed back and forth between the shooter and his he/she "girlfriend" sounds like it was written by someone much older. I'm 45, and I don't know anyone within 10-years of my age (older or younger) that uses the term "old man" to describe their dad, or "my love" to describe someone they care about.

None of what has been proposed passes the smell test.

Listen to all of this, you might find it interesting. This lawyer brings up some interesting facts that many people might have forgotten about.

Robinson's new attorney wants time to review the evidence before waiving a potential preliminary hearing.

An attorney for an 22-year-old man charged with killing Charlie Kirk asked a judge Monday [09/29/25] for more time to review the large amount of evidence in the case before deciding if the defense will seek a preliminary hearing.

A preliminary hearing would determine if there is enough evidence against Tyler Robinson to go forward with a trial. Defendants can waive that step, but Robinson's newly appointed attorney Kathryn Nester said her team did not intend to do so.

Utah prosecutors have charged Robinson with aggravated murder and plan to seek the death penalty.

Is it possible that the evidence is not as complete as people have been lead to believe?

The Aftermath

What followed Charlie Kirk's assassination is equally strange.

From many accounts, the crime scene was not very well secured. Some guy was filmed taking down the video camera that was right behind where Charlie Kirk as sitting -- and there has little to no mention of this -- other than Candice Owens claiming to have seen the video.

There's also the trans aspect. Which doesn't really make sense, because Charlie Kirk was not the tip of the spear as it relates to the trans issue. There is no real "tip of the spear" because pretty much everyone that's not indoctrinated -- believes that trans ideology is total nonsense. Kirk spoke on the issue, but was not the only, or the primary, one doing so.

Karlyn Borysenko, makes an interesting point here.

https://open.substack.com/pub/karlyn/p/why-im-extemely-skeptical-about-the?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

The video where Erika Kirk is kissing Charlie's hand.

The following video is just bizarre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEhnL-fIZE

Why put something like this out there? This was done to invoke a response of some kind (from someone) but what kind of response, and from who, or what group?

Look at the comments on this:

You could look at the comments and say, "That's rude, someone is grieving a loved on here," but then, why is Erika Kirk making it a public issue. Why film it at all?

What's Really Going on Here?

There is massive manipulation in play here. None of this has seemed "real." The whole situation is like reading a litany of bad movie reviews.

However, those on the left that are cheering Charlie Kirk's assassination are indeed doing so. There have been many prominent people on the left who have been overjoyed that someone killed Charlie Kirk. And these people are not shy about it.

To what end does this serve? I don't pretend to know, as this event has been manipulated by both those on the left and the right.

All I know is that something isn't right.

However, even if it doesn’t pass -- why is it being proposed?!

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The government of California has officially crossed the Rubicon here. It is enough for legislators to signal that they want to block people from saying things which they, the state, disagrees with, but it's another thing when they adopt legislation that is designed to enforce that idea.

I don't need to get into the importance of "free speech" and why it's a good thing. We all understand this. But I'll briefly get into it anyway! The only reason to stop citizens from questioning their government--is the same reason that governments want to disarm the citizens--because the government plans on doing something horrible to the citizens, and they want to minimalize any pushback.

Likewise, when it comes to online speech--there is no reason to enact laws to limit it. There are already laws by which individuals can be held accountable for defamation, or slander; however, those laws don't protect politicians from being criticized. They also don't extend to people posting content that is accurate (something that someone said, or was documented to have said).

In comes California SB 771

There are many groups speaking out about this legislation.

This is a serious problem, and we all see where this can lead.

The Computer & Communications Industries Association is worried about this legislation.

"It’s essential that we protect users online, but SB 771 is not the right approach. By exposing platforms to vague and costly lawsuits, this bill would force services to become overly cautious and err on the side of censorship ? removing far more speech than necessary and restricting legitimate conversations, all to avoid unfounded litigation. This risks undermining free expression, conflicts with federal law, and ultimately would make the online environment less open and less trustworthy. We urge the Assembly to reject this flawed measure and pursue balanced, effective solutions that will truly protect users while upholding constitutional rights and an open internet.”

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is also worried about the legislation.

Framed as a civil rights safeguard, SB 771 could enable politically motivated claims that conflate criticism of Zionism with antisemitism ? a trend already visible in Meta’s content moderation policies, where “Zionist” is treated as interchangeable with “Jewish,” and in the push for platforms to adopt the controversial international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This definition has been widely criticized by hundreds of scholars and numerous Jewish organizations (including JVP and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice) for erasing the line between political critique and bigotry, raising serious concerns that SB771 could be used to suppress protected speech about apartheid, occupation, and settler colonialism in Palestine.

ADC condemns all forms of hate and stands firmly against discrimination in every form. SB 771 weaponizes civil liability to force platforms to remove content that challenges dominant narratives, particularly those relating to Israel and Palestine. By encouraging platforms to over-police content to avoid costly lawsuits, SB 771 can trigger a de facto “delete policy” ? especially for Palestinian voices and those in solidarity with them.

As you can see, there's a wide ranging difference of opinion here--but they all agree that SB 771 is a bad idea.

Freedom of Speech at It's Core

You can't rally a cause, or a movement without free speech--that's a fact--this is indisputable.

Language connects us all (more than it divides us) and limiting the free and open sharing of information, by language or speech restrictions is against "collective humanity" as a whole--regardless of what religion you subscribe to.

Having a national language falls outside of these bounds, as it's not a limitation, a national language is required for proper legal and judicial review. Words mean things, and laws have to be based on those words, not "feels," not "potential interpretations," but what those words actually relate to in the physical world.

So, Where is This Legislation Now?

Let's take a peek.

This legislation is likely to pass.

Prepare yourself if you live in California--you're about to be effectively removed from the political process--act accordingly.

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I wrote this the other day on Substack:

This is an odd subject, because I don’t think we’ve ever been here before as a society.

Generally, people from Western nations tend to honor the dead.

That is to say, human life has intrinsic value and worth. Those who relied upon, or where emotionally connected to the person who died—they have worth as well—this current crop of people on the left doesn’t see things this way.

Their worldview doesn’t work within the realm of how people generally operate. These individuals literally have no legacy. Who will grieve them when they die? Their kids are taught (by them) that they shouldn’t respect those who just died—because of a difference in opinion.

Moreover, who doesn’t want to be grieved when they die? Who doesn’t value life—when every living thing on the planet fights to stay alive? How can someone become so inverted?

This is not normal human behavior. We’re all selfish, if we’re honest. It’s part of what keeps us alive when outside circumstances might dictate otherwise—it’s part of being human.

But these people on the left are subject to a cause that promises them nothing. Literally nothing. They’re subjecting themselves to the worst kind of slavery. Their minds have been captured. They are by literal definition slaves.

These people who are celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death are looking at life like it’s 3rd person (and I don’t mean by using pronouns). It’s as if they believe they can walk away after all this, and there is somewhere else that their mind truly resides (they’re separated from reality).

But there’s nowhere to go—at least not in the sense that those still living can interact with.

So what does this tell us?

It tells me (at least) that there are a whole lot of people who are “not all there” and are willing to commit to horrible acts—just because they are directed to do so. They are selfless—but selfless in service of something that will never benefit them—or their offspring.

This creates quite the dilemma.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

This enemy is new, in that they don’t really understand reality—and don’t even act within the confines of their own best interest.

This is like humans vs ants (and I mean that metaphorically, not literally) most of us, can’t imagine a world in which any people champion a cause that makes things worse (for them and for everyone else).

This leftist mindset just serves to create more of the angst and hopelessness that came before it.

Where do we go from here?

I have no idea, but I know that a lot of people are going to either wake up, or live miserable lives, because the clock is ticking—none of these people are getting any younger.

Time comes for us all. It’s what we do while we’re here that matters.

There people who are worried that those on the right are "canceling" people who endorsed the assassination of Charlie Kirk, but that argument ignores the core difference of what's happening here.

The left canceled people for telling the truth, things like, "Men can't have babies" and "There are physical differences between men and women." Basic biology was enough to get someone canceled by the left.

The people endorsing political assassinations are in no way on the same level as those stating biological facts.

These people aren’t just sharing “mean jokes” with their friends.

They are broadcasting their endorsement of assassination(s) on social media—many in video format—not in their DMs.

These people are being intentionally performative about it.

There is no "cancelling." The people publicly celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death are bringing this upon themselves—through their deliberate and performative actions. They're effectively doxxing themselves.

The question is, “Why?” Who seeks the company of those who wish literal death upon those they disagree with?

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I was thinking about this today (08/27/25) because of something Phisto Sobanii wrote on Substack.

This got me thinking.

Do we need "leaders?" Why is everyone waiting on said leaders? I think that might be part of what's missing in all this--not the leaders themselves--but the idea that leaders are needed to effect change.

There is often no “ruler” on the right. The true right (not what leftists call "right," which is actually tyrannical).

Those on the right tend to be free-thinking people, who are less likely to rally around a “ruler.” This is why the right is not rallied in the same way that those on the left are. Those on the right tend to be problem solvers.

This is also why those on the left (at least the followers, not those at the top) actually think that Trump is a dictator. They don’t understand the Constitution, and how it’s meant to be applied. If they did they would never have supported leftist leaders in the first place, as leftist leaders are always trying to circumvent the Constitution.

Those on the left would argue that Trump is a ruler/dictator. But most of the people I’ve run into like what Trump is doing—not particularly his “leadership,” not what he’s telling other people to do (because, for the most part he’s not). No, most people like results.

Once people see those results, then they start to rally behind someone.

There are plenty of people online that don’t bring results. That’s not to say that they don’t have good ideas. And good ideas can spread. Good ideas are needed. Good ideas bring people hope. Good ideas can inspire people to take action.

The best news I’ve seen is that younger people are trending more to the right. Because they are acting on what they’ve seen or experienced—not what they are told.

It’s the generations before them that are looking for nostalgia, and still believe that there are those in Washington who are looking out for their best interest. There are not. However, there might be those in Washington whose current goals align with some of ours. And we should take advantage of that situation.

Up to, and until, enough people start doing what’s necessary (within their own lives) to turn things around, we’ll continue to slide further and further to the left.

There are no true “leaders” on the right. There are however, those who inspire others, and that’s what we need to keep things headed in the right direction.

The American Revolution was not fought by “leaders”—it was fought by those who were inspired by leaders.

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

There was a hidden gem in the OBBBA (One Big Beautiful Bill Act).

I admit, I wasn't holding out much hope in the OBBBA aside from making the Trump Tax Cuts permanent, but there's one more thing that hits home for me.

The removal of fines related to federal CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. CAFE standards were an albatross around the next of automobile industry since 1978 (when the rules went into effect).

The CAFE standard rules are still there, but there are no fines imposed for violating those rules. It's basically the same thing they did for the Obamacare insurance mandate. It's still there, but there are no taxes/fines if you violate it.

For 50 years, the federal government has been forcing fuel economy standards on auto companies. If the average fuel economy of the cars sold in a year exceeded a federal standard, the companies had to cough up enormous penalties.

Passed in 1975 as a way to deal with an energy crisis (that was caused by government price controls), “corporate average fuel economy” (CAFE) standards – required the fleet of cars sold by an automaker to achieve an arbitrary miles-per-gallon goal. If they missed the goal, they paid hefty annual fines.

From the beginning, these standards were a disaster, forcing automakers to radically downsize their fleet, which research showed cost thousands of lives because, all things being equal, smaller, lighter cars are less safe than larger ones.

In fact, a 2002 National Academy of Sciences found that these fuel economy standards not only boosted the cost of cars, but may have caused as many as 2,600 more traffic fatalities just in 1993.

The standards, which were ratcheted up year after year, also wildly distorted the car market. To meet them, automakers had to sell more small cars than consumers wanted to buy, which meant heavily discounting them, and then making the cost up by jacking up prices on the bigger cars most buyers wanted or needed. Carmakers routinely paid extravagant fines for failing to meet the standards. Last year, Chrysler had to write a check to Uncle Sam for more than $190 million.

Chrysler didn't have to pay more than $190 million in fines -- their customers did. But it wasn't just Chrysler -- it was pretty much every major car manufacturer in the world -- for a total of $105 billion in fines paid.

CAFE standards were never about increasing efficiency, that was the lie that was told to the public. Check this out from 2012.

The latest "corporate average fuel economy" (CAFE) standards will require the average fuel economy of all the cars an automaker sells to almost double to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

Automakers largely back the new standard. Lots of fuel-saving technologies exist today, with more in the offing, they say. But the industry also admits the mandate will require significant change in the kind of cars automakers build and sell.

"Electric vehicles will play a huge role in getting there," Wade Newton of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers told IBD. That's because traditional gas-powered cars today come nowhere near that 2025 goal. And whether they ever will isn't clear.

Even the tiny Smart car gets just 36 miles a gallon. And no hybrid on the market today meets Obama's mileage goal. Plus the rules will require every car, large and small, to dramatically improve its fuel economy.

The Honda Fit would need to get 61 mpg by 2025, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That's double what it gets today. How Honda can possibly close that gap is anyone's guess.

In contrast, the EPA gives electric cars huge "miles per gallon equivalent" ratings. The all-electric Nissan Leaf gets a 99 "mpge" rating, the Volt a 60.

How many people out there knew that their 2025 vehicle, whatever that might be, should get 54.5 MPG? Even the newest hybrids "meet the standard" in estimated MPG. But it's doubtful that they would live up to it in real-world scenarios. And the Honda Fit, no way it's going to 61 MPG with an ICE engine. But then, it was never supposed to, Americans were supposed to be forced into ever more expensive hybrid and EV options -- because of Climate Change. Never mind that we were supposed to reach the "critical warming point" -- for the last 40 years -- and it just keeps getting moved forward every 10 years or so.

The idea was to have the public think that CAFE standards were about making ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) more efficient -- but that was never the goal. The true goal was to have ICE engines effectively outlawed through legislation. Legislation that the vast majority of the public was unaware of.

The honest truth is that none of this has anything to do with the environment. If it did, real solutions would be championed -- but they're not -- only hair-brained schemes that result in money changing hands are offered as "solutions." A lot of that money is in the form of government subsidies (read tax dollars).

Isn't it funny how when the government subsidies are axed, the demand for eco-friendly products immediately goes down?

Remember the government program "Cash for Clunkers?" That's where the government ordered dealerships to destroy millions of fully functioning automobiles and effectively collapse the used car market.

I wrote about Cash for Clunkers (3) times in August of 2009, here, here and here.

Cash for Clunkers was a nightmare because it removed all of the cheap used cars from the market, cars that sell for cash. You know the kind, the ones that people just starting out might buy.

Government interference in the economy is like Rumpelstiltskin. There's always a price to pay for messing with the economy.

Sure, you might sell more new cars, but you'll sell them to people who can't really afford them. Stopping those people from advancing economically, and that's never a good thing.

Now that the $105 billion in additional cost which was added to the US car market has been alleviated, perhaps car prices will come down a bit.

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"