No commentary needed:
View this post on Instagram
Source: Larry Elder, via Instagram
Month: April 2025
bookmark_borderJeb Stuart Preservation Trust’s response to the despicable bill HB1699
The Jeb Stuart Preservation Trust, the organization that runs and maintains Jeb Stuart’s boyhood home, wrote an excellent letter to the Virginia governor regarding the despicable bill that bullies and bigots in the state legislature are attempting to pass.
Here is the most important passage from their letter:
HB1699… can be argued as viewpoint discrimination. In 1995 Virginia Supreme Court held viewpoint discrimination as an egregious free speech violation. In Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995), the Supreme Court declared: ‘When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.’
(emphasis mine)
The concept of viewpoint discrimination really captures what is so deeply and fundamentally wrong with this disgraceful bill and the thought process behind it. Thank you, Jeb Stuart Preservation Trust, for putting this idea into words and providing legal citations to support it.
You can read the letter in its entirety here.
bookmark_borderNever forget…
bookmark_borderBarron Trump an “oddity on campus” – another example of the intolerance of the left
The third slide of this Instagram post really caught my attention. In it, Barron Trump is called an “oddity on campus” by fellow NYU students because “he goes to class, he goes home.”
Why the heck is it considered “odd” to go to class and then go home? Isn’t that exactly what a student is supposed to do? What is it, exactly, that Barron is expected to do in addition to attending his classes? What is required in order to qualify as “normal” in these people’s eyes?
This is a perfect example of the bigotry and intolerance of the progressive left. They proudly proclaim their support for queer people, trans people, single mothers, poor people, racial minorities, religious minorities… but find it “odd” that a student goes to class and then goes home. They criticize a young man for literally doing exactly what makes perfect sense for a person to do in his situation.
So in case this needs to be stated, which it shouldn’t, there is nothing odd about going to class and then home. It is exactly what makes sense for a student to do. I’m tired of this meanness, intolerance, and hypocrisy.
bookmark_border“Hey MAGAs, show me your best cognitive dissonance!”
I recently saw a post from one of my Facebook “friends” regarding the accidental leaking of military information by Department of Defense officials in a group chat.
The post read: “Hey MAGAs, show me your best cognitive dissonance! Best one wins a new red hat!… Go ahead, twist me a pretzel and tell me why this is all OK.”
This post, to be blunt, really pisses me off. And it does so for two reasons:
First, the double standards and logical inconsistency. This person expresses outrage about what is a relatively minor problem in the grand scheme of things, while completely failing to express any criticism of an obvious, pervasive, and blatant campaign of atrocity that is enormous in both its scope and its severity. He calls an accidental leak “a major fuck up” and “justification for heads to roll.” However, he expressed not even the mildest criticism of the statue genocide that began in 2020 and continues to this day, a series of deliberate and intentional acts of extreme cruelty targeting people who are different from the norm in an attempt to ensure their erasure from society. It makes no sense that someone would get so outraged at what is essentially an accident, while apparently feeling no outrage whatsoever at a deliberate and cruel campaign to inflict harm.
Second is the entire way that the argument is framed. This person purportedly invites others to discuss and debate, while simultaneously stating that anyone who expresses a differing opinion is demonstrating “cognitive dissonance” and “twisting a pretzel.” This way of framing the issue puts people who see things differently in a no-win position: we could either be silent and pretend that we agree when we don’t, or we could speak up and have our views automatically be labeled as “cognitive dissonance” and “twisting a pretzel.” Talk about intolerance for those who think and feel differently than you do. What is the point of inviting discussion when you have no openness to considering alternative perspectives? Why even ask people to contribute their views, when you admittedly have no intention of actually hearing or learning from those views, but intend rather to use those views as evidence of their authors’ twistedness and cognitive dissonance?
Personally, I support Trump and his administration because I’m on the autism spectrum and my special interest is history and statues, so the events involving statues that have taken place over the past 5 years have had a profound negative impact on me. The issue of military information being leaked just isn’t important to me in comparison, and therefore I do not share the outrage that this “friend” and so many other people are expressing. This isn’t cognitive dissonance, and it’s not twisting a pretzel. I simply have a different perspective because I’ve had different life experiences and my brain works differently.
bookmark_borderDon’t cry for the fired bureaucrats…
Very well-said:
View this post on Instagram
Source: Being Libertarian, via Instagram
Exactly! It’s the double standards and logical inconsistency that are so infuriating. It makes no sense for people to be outraged when government workers lose their jobs, but not when private sector workers lose their jobs. This is especially true when the private sector workers lost their jobs due to regulations that government workers created and implemented.
There are some great comments on the post which deserve to be quoted as well:
“Remember when Biden said people fired for not taking the vaccine could find another job? Well I’m sure the bureaucrats can find another job.”
“The fact that people I once called friends are boo-hooing about federal workers who held jobs which never should’ve existed and not the millions of people who lost jobs, homes, or businesses due to the actions of the regulatory agencies those workers worked for…sickens me.”
bookmark_border“You have a right to self-defense and the use of just force …”
Check out this post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:
View this post on Instagram
My reaction: So? Whether or not your abuser can get a gun is none of your business. Whether or not your abuser can carry a gun concealed is also none of your business. The only thing that is your business is that your abuser doesn’t harm you, and doesn’t contact you if you don’t want them to. And preventing these things is the whole purpose of a restraining order.
As long as a person is not harming you or contacting you against your wishes, the things that they do are none of your business. The objects that another person owns and/or carries are none of your business.
You have a right not to be harmed or contacted; you don’t have a right to prevent others from owning or carrying any object that they might potentially use to harm you. If you demand control over the objects that other people are allowed to own and/or carry, you are now the one who is harming others, and you are now the abuser.
As the FPC correctly points out: “You have a right to self-defense and the use of just force against unjust force. Period.”