bookmark_borderFour years ago today

Four years ago today, after spending months lauding, worshipping, and deifying the perpetrators of riots in which the people I love were murdered, society decided to erupt in an orgy of vicious condemnation of a group of people like me who had the audacity to actually hold a protest expressing our views.

For the entire late spring and summer of 2020, in nearly every city and state, intolerant bullies held violent and hateful demonstrations during which they demanded that members of the majority never again have to encounter a person who is different from the norm, that people like me be obliterated from existence, that the only perspective acknowledged be their own, that all voices other than theirs be silenced. My “friends” responded to this by unanimously flooding social media with mindless expressions of solidarity with the bullies. Politicians responded by effusively praising the bullies, groveling at their feet, and falling all over each other in their eagerness to fulfill the bullies’ demands. Our country’s public art, public spaces, place names, and calendars were redone to ensure that people like me could no longer feel included, to erase every possible trace of non-majority perspectives, stories, and viewpoints.

On January 6, 2021, people like me protested. We were hurt and angry at the way that we had been treated, as anyone with even half a brain would be in our situation. After being subjected to months of the cruelest and most appalling treatment imaginable, finally we fought back. Our hurt and anger were 100% justified, as were all of our actions. My “friends” responded to this by expressing their disgust and complaining that it made them sick to their stomachs to see people like me standing up for ourselves and expressing our views. The pro-bullying activists who up until that point had been masquerading as the news media responded by viciously attacking and condemning us in the harshest terms imaginable. Live on air, the disgraceful excuses for human beings who called themselves political commentators called us idiots, morons, “traitors,” white supremacists, and worse.

Four years ago today, one of the people like me who participated in the protest, Ashli Babbitt, was murdered. And society responded not by criticizing the person who murdered her, but by condemning and ridiculing her for having participated in the protest in the first place. Society reacted by blaming her for her own murder.

Today, Donald Trump will be certified as president. Nothing can bring Ashli Babbitt back, but this day gives me a small bit of satisfaction. Nothing can truly undo the atrocity that was perpetrated against people like me four years ago, but this day does undo it a little bit. This day gives me, and all people like me, a victory. Because what the participants in the protest were trying to achieve four years ago, has actually happened. Donald Trump is going to be president. Today, people like me have won. And the mindless and intolerant society that decided to sadistically attack, condemn, shame, insult, and murder us, merely for expressing views that are different from those of the majority, lost.

To say that it serves them right, would be an understatement.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Rogan O’Handley (@dc_draino)

Rest in peace, Air Force Veteran Ashli Babbitt.

Say Her Name.

bookmark_borderTrump to pardon unjustly convicted Capitol protesters

According to Yahoo News, president-elect Trump is planning to pardon people who were unjustly charged and convicted for the crime of participating in a protest whose message the establishment disagrees with. This is fantastic news, as it is appalling that these people were charged with crimes in the first place (or criticized in any way, for that matter). And even better, Trump plans to jail members of the committee that decided to treat a protest that they disagree with, as somehow meriting investigation.

Yahoo’s headline is a bit confusing, as there is no such thing as “Capitol rioters.”

The headline, of course, ought to read “Trump vows to pardon Capitol protesters and jail Jan. 6 committee members.”

Notwithstanding Yahoo’s defamatory and inaccurate headline, this is good news indeed.

bookmark_borderDespicable New York Times “fact check” re: RFK

The New York Times wrote the following ridiculous paragraph in an article about Robert F. Kennedy: 

“Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many artificial ingredients, questioning why the Canadian version has fewer than the U.S. version. But he was wrong. The ingredient list is roughly the same, although Canada’s has natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used ‘for freshness,’ according to the ingredient label.”

The Times claims that the ingredient list is roughly the same, while in the very same sentence listing four substantial differences in the ingredient list. 

It’s like Mary Lincoln telling someone that she mostly enjoyed watching “Our American Cousin,” except for the minor detail of her husband being shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth. 

How can the Times not see that it is directly contradicting itself in a single sentence? 

“But he was wrong,” the Times pompously boasts. Not seeing the fact that they are proving Kennedy right with their very next sentence, in which they list the artificial ingredients in Froot Loops.

As Brad Cohn points out: “As you see, the ingredient list is just completely identical, except the US product contains formaldehyde, cyanide, and nearly undetectable levels of saxitoxin.” 

The New York Times is pathetic, both for their contemptuous tone and for their complete lack of logic.

Source: DC Draino / Being Libertarian

bookmark_borderA beautiful day

I am happy today. 

This is the first time in my life that I have voted for a presidential candidate who won. In 2008, the first year I was eligible to vote, I voted for libertarian candidate Bob Barr. In 2012, I voted for libertarian candidate Ron Paul. In 2016, I voted for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. I was happy that Trump won, and definitely preferred him to Hillary Clinton, but due to the fact that all of Massachusetts’s electoral votes are basically guaranteed to always go to the democratic candidate, I continued my tradition of voting third party. In 2020, I voted for Trump, and he lost. In 2024, I voted for Trump and – it feels both strange and amazing to type these words – he won.

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Italian Americans 4 Trump 🇺🇸🇮🇹 (@italiani4trump)

It is a beautiful day. Things feel lighter, more hopeful. I feel that I can breathe again. A noose is no longer tightening around my throat, the heavy boot of tyranny no longer stomping on my face. For four years, I never thought that this result would happen. To some extent, it feels magical, unreal, almost like a dream. Part of me feels that any moment I will wake up, and this beautiful reality will be shattered.

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by RFK Jr. (@robertfkennedyjr)

I am proud of my country today. For four years, the sight of the American flag, the sound of patriotic music, and the mention of the Fourth of July made me feel more pain than pride. For me, these things signified the country that had elected a government determined to force people to undergo a medical procedure against their will and to destroy everything that makes life worth living. But now I feel much more positively towards America. Self-righteous bullies have spent four years pompously lecturing about “our democracy,” but now the very democracy that they’ve spent all this time worshipping and fetishizing has elected Donald Trump! Perhaps this country, this democracy, isn’t so bad after all.

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Vivek Ramaswamy (@vivekgramaswamy)

I admit that Trump is not perfect. He almost certainly does not care about statues with the same intensity as I do, or in the same way that I do. He cannot fully reverse the atrocities that have been committed against historical figures, and by extension against myself. He may not even partially reverse them. But for today at least, it feels like a healing balm has been smoothed over my wounds. This election result is the most significant good thing that has happened in a very long time. It does not undo the pain, anguish, and trauma that I’ve experienced over the past four years. But it helps. It really helps. 

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Virginia Flaggers (@the_virginia_flaggers)

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by colbycovington (@colbycovington)

Four years ago, at this exact time of year, was the rock bottom of my life. Everything that made my life worth living had been destroyed, the historical figures that I love having been lynched, smashed to pieces, set on fire, beheaded, strangled, and drowned with complete impunity, and the people who committed these atrocities perceived as holding the moral high ground in the eyes of society. And by electing Joe Biden rather than Donald Trump, our country confirmed that they didn’t care about my pain, didn’t care about my perspective, didn’t care about the historical figures’ right to exist. Our country’s response to my pain was to inflict even more of it. Our country’s response to my (metaphorical) gaping, bleeding wounds was to rub salt in them. Seeing other people’s joy, exuberance, celebrations, and gloating, after the excruciating agony that I had experienced over the preceding months, was nothing short of soul-crushing.

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Jason Aldean (@jasonaldean)

Now, the situation is reversed. It’s the mirror image of that horrible time four years ago. I never thought that such a thing would happen, and I hesitate to type these words for fear that I will somehow jinx it. But the people who gloated so cruelly and gratuitously four years ago, who fell all over each other in their eagerness to shove their spiteful celebrations down my throat, lost. I won, and it is now my turn to gloat. Part of me wants to do exactly that. The people who hurt me deserve to be punished for their actions. Retribution, revenge, justice… these words are all synonyms to me, and all are completely justified in this situation. But another part of me sees the merits of what is commonly referred to as “taking the high road.” If I gloat as nastily as my enemies did, then that makes me like them, at least a little bit. Part of me feels that the people who caused my pain deserve to experience the same pain in return, while part of me feels that no person deserves to experience pain so horrific.

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Jacob Bryant (@jacobbryantmusic)

Regardless, I am happy today. I intend to savor this feeling, to soak it in, to enjoy it for as long as I can. For the past four and a half years, positive experiences have been hard to come by for me. This is a big and important one, which I truly appreciate.

In an Instagram post which you can view here or below, Breitbart News described Trump’s victory as “indisputably the greatest political comeback in American history,” and I can’t help but agree. Trump is only the second president, after Grover Cleveland, to win two non-consecutive terms, and as the post mentions, he overcame “multiple prosecutions; two assassination attempts; censorship on social media; overt media bias; and even efforts to intimidate his lawyers.”

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Breitbart (@wearebreitbart)

Breitbart’s mention of overt media bias is no exaggeration. Starting with their coverage of the capitol protest on January 6, 2021, the news media has completely given up on even pretending to be neutral. Their coverage of that protest was appalling, disgraceful, literally sickening, beyond unprofessional, and absolutely shocking to the conscience. Nearly 100% of their political coverage over the ensuing four years has fit those descriptions as well. Any semblance of neutrality, or professionalism for that matter, has completely vanished. Prior to 2020, the news media certainly had a progressive bias, but at least it was covert. Now their bigotry, their closed-mindedness, their utter contempt for anyone who deviates from their totalitarian social norms, is naked, blatant, and on full display. I have been hurt, enraged, and traumatized dozens if not hundreds of times over the past four years thanks to the news media, and this is despite making the decision to almost entirely cease news consumption due to finding it so hurtful, enraging, and traumatizing. Every time I so much as glimpse a biased headline, I am reminded painfully of the fact that news consumption, previously an enjoyable and interesting way to gain information, has devolved into just another way for society to torment me by expressing its rejection and hatred.

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk1776)

Which brings me to the most amazing and remarkable thing about this election result:  for possibly the first time in my life, the people who hurt me didn’t get what they wanted, and I did. The gloating “friends,” acquaintances, family members, and strangers on social media. The mindless conformists who displayed Harris/Walz signs on their lawns in order to remind me every time I walk down the street that they support the lynching of the man that I love. Democratic politicians, activists, and government officials determined to eradicate every last shred of diversity and individual liberty from the earth. Their despicable accomplices in the aforementioned news media, who have traumatized me dozens if not hundreds of times. Bullying prosecutors. Orwellian social media executives. Wannabee assassins. All of these people lost. And I won. That’s something that has never happened to me before, and I am in awe of it. 

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by President Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump)

One final observation about Trump’s victory is that it provides a bit of justice, even if only small, for the historical figures. Particularly the statue of Christopher Columbus who stood at the Minnesota state capitol until being lynched by a mob of bigoted bullies in summer 2020. Perhaps statues weren’t in the forefront of voters’ minds when they cast their ballots, but rather overshadowed by more mundane issues such as inflation, social security, immigration, and the economy. Regardless, the man who chose to allow this lynching to happen, and later to characterize it as an understandable act of civil disobedience, lost his bid to become vice president. So today I am thinking about Christopher Columbus of St. Paul, Minnesota. Nothing can undo the atrocity that was done to him, but today brings him a quantum of justice. He, and what was done to him, must never, ever be forgotten. 

Christopher Columbus Statue with the Minnesota State Capitol in background

 

bookmark_borderAn example of the bias of Yahoo News

While checking my email the other day, I came across this infuriating set of headlines on Yahoo:

I can almost hear the awe and admiration in the author’s voice when reading the headline about Harris’s “historic speech” as the “first Black woman and first person of South Asian descent to accept a major party’s presidential nomination.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s reason for doubting election results is sneeringly dismissed as “baseless.” 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: News articles and headlines are required to be neutral. This is the entire purpose of the news media. News articles, and their headlines, must contain information only, without opinions or value judgments.

Despite this, Yahoo, as well as other media outlets, has a pattern of consistently portraying one party’s politicians in glowing terms while criticizing, condemning, shaming, attacking, and calling attention to every possible negative thing about, political figures of the other party. Because the things that have been going on in this country over the past few years are so triggering to me, I almost never read news articles. Yahoo’s disdain for people whose political views differ from those of the establishment is so blatant that its existence is obvious merely from looking at headlines. Given that the entire purpose of the news media is to present facts only, and to abstain entirely from voicing opinions, this situation is completely unacceptable.

To characterize something as “baseless” is an insult, not a piece of information. Therefore, it is unacceptable for a news headline to contain this word. (Unless it is part of a quote by a person whom the article is quoting… but that is not the case here. “Baseless” is the headline writer’s own word.)

It is mentally exhausting to be made to feel shamed, insulted, and attacked day in and day out for having political beliefs that are different from the majority. Shame on Yahoo for their repeated use of bigoted, biased, pejorative, and sneering headlines.

bookmark_border“Anti-Trump Burnout: The Resistance Says It’s Exhausted”

I recently came across an article titled, “Anti-Trump Burnout: The Resistance Says It’s Exhausted.”

This headline confuses me, because people who are anti-Trump are the opposite of the resistance. They are the authority. They are the establishment. They are the people who run the institutions of our society, who hold the power. They are, as hippies would say, the “man.”

This headline is a contradiction in terms, because in reality, Trump and his supporters are the resistance. 

That’s why people were arrested en masse for protesting at the Capitol building in support of him on January 6, 2021.

That’s why one of those protesters was killed by a police officer, and why society almost unanimously reacted to her death by viciously insulting, condemning, ridiculing, and shaming her as opposed to the police officer who killed her. 

That’s why Trump was banned from all of the major social media networks.

That’s why he has been charged in four different criminal cases.

That’s why states have removed his name from their ballots.

That’s why the term “MAGA Republicans” – an abbreviation for Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” – is used as an insult. 

That’s why it is considered socially unacceptable to say that you support Trump, or that you voted for him. 

That’s why, when hundreds of people personally attacked me on social media for expressing my support for statues, one such person noted the fact that I had once retweeted a pro-Trump post and summarily classified me as “human garbage.”

Nothing could be more twisted, or more wrong, than to call the people who control society and use their power to harm and oppress others, the resistance.

It’s also completely lacking in empathy that the so-called “resistance” – which in reality is the anti-resistance – would characterize itself as “exhausted.” There is nothing exhausting about holding all of the power in society and using it to harm and oppress other people. Trump and his supporters are the ones being harmed and oppressed. We are the ones with no power. We, and not the people harming us, have reason to be exhausted. The anti-resistance has nothing to complain about: if harming and oppressing others is so exhausting to you, then stop doing it.

bookmark_borderThe news media’s bias re: Capitol protest

This headline from a few weeks ago on Yahoo News is a bit puzzling. I am not sure what it is referring to, because no Capitol riot took place three years ago. There was, however, a protest that took place at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Perhaps that’s what Yahoo News was thinking of?

This headline should read: “Capitol protest, 3 years later: Hundreds of convictions, yet 1 big mystery is unsolved.

Hundreds of people have been convicted in the massive prosecution of the Jan. 6, 2021, protest in the three years since the U.S. Capitol protest.

Dozens of protesters still on the lam.”

This, of course, raises the question of why any people, let alone hundreds of them, would be prosecuted, let alone convicted, for participating in a protest in support of a politically unpopular cause. The answer to this question, of course, is that the United States has become a totalitarian dictatorship. For a person to be charged, prosecuted, or convicted of a crime for expressing unpopular beliefs is abhorrent, immoral, disturbing, and completely incompatible with a free society.

This is a point that, unfortunately, seems to be lost not only on the employees of Yahoo News but on far too many people in the general public.

And yes, as Yahoo ominously reminds us, dozens of people are still on the lam for the “crime” of having expressed unpopular beliefs. Why the expression of unpopular beliefs would be considered something that a person would need to go on the lam for… that is a question whose answer is the same as above: the United States has become a totalitarian dictatorship.

The absurdity of people being on the lam for having participated in a protest is also largely lost on both Yahoo News and the general public.

It’s also interesting that a couple of years ago, when I posted on Twitter to express my outrage that hundreds of people had been arrested for participating in the Capitol protest, a bully responded by calling me a “drama queen” and alleging that only 70 or so people had been arrested. This Yahoo News headline, as biased as it may be, confirms that hundreds of people were not only arrested, but actually convicted of crimes, for participating in the protest. Contrary to the bully’s assertion, I was not exaggerating the numbers; I was correct.

bookmark_borderThe most ridiculous article ever published?

This might just be the most ridiculous article ever published in the history of the world: 

Source: Being Libertarian

First of all, the headline should read, “People who didn’t get a COVID vaccine are at higher risk of traffic accidents, according to a new study.”

To skip something means to pass on attending or participating in something. It presumes that the event in question will be happening regardless of whether or not the person goes (e.g. if a person skipped a party, that means that the party happened, but that particular person didn’t go). Getting a vaccine is not something that happens regardless of whether or not you go. If you choose not to get a vaccine, then the act of you getting the vaccine will not happen. Therefore, it makes no sense to speak of “skipping” a vaccine. Why not refer to it simply as not getting the vaccine? (Declining, opting against, and abstaining are also perfectly good options.)

Second, it makes no sense to speak of “their” covid vaccine. It’s not as if there is a specific vaccine dose set aside for each person, which goes unused if the assigned person chooses not to partake. If a person chooses not to get a covid vaccine, then there is no such thing as “their” covid vaccine.

Taken together, this language, like the language of so many “news” articles on the topic of covid, presumes that people ought to get the covid vaccine. The headline’s word choice implies that people are somehow being derelict and careless, and failing to do something that they are supposed to, by choosing not to get the vaccine. And this is false, because getting and not getting the covid vaccine are equally valid options. 

And then there is the issue of why someone would choose to conduct a study on such a topic as the correlation between a person’s vaccine status and car accident risk. There is no possible motivation for undertaking such a study, other than to shame, stigmatize, and humiliate people who choose not to get the covid vaccine. This is such a cruel, mean-spirited, and nasty thing to do, that it is incomprehensible to me why anyone would wish to do it. The fact that researchers would choose to conduct this study, and that an institution would choose to fund it, is appalling.

Even more preposterous, if such a thing is possible, is the claim that the alleged increased risk of traffic accidents “could justify changes to driver insurance policies.” For auto insurance companies to charge higher rates, or impose additional requirements, on people who opt against a particular medical procedure is morally abhorrent for obvious reasons. The right to decline medical intervention is the most fundamental right that there is. Therefore, people cannot be punished in any way for declining a medical procedure. (By the way, the biased language of the article and the biased nature of the study already impermissibly punish people who decline the vaccine, so the last thing that should be done is to add to this injustice via auto insurance discrimination.) A person’s medical decisions are absolutely none of an auto insurance company’s business, and auto insurance companies have no right to know anything about a person’s medical decisions, let alone treat people differently based on those decisions. 

The authors of this study ought to be ashamed of themselves for even suggesting such an immoral idea, and the author of the article should be ashamed for giving them a platform. Criticizing and humiliating people who have done nothing wrong is truly shameful, not declining the covid vaccine.

bookmark_borderThere is nothing deplorable about calling out wrongdoing

In the latest example of our society treating protests against injustice as the problem as opposed to the injustice itself, FBI Director Christopher Wray recently called criticism of his agency “deplorable and dangerous” after FBI agents ransacked the home of former president Trump. “Violence against law enforcement is not the answer, no matter who you’re upset with,” Wray added.

Actually, Wray has things completely backward with these comments. The actions of the FBI – which involved a group of approximately 30 agents ransacking Trump’s private residence because of concerns that he took home documents that should have been given to the National Archives – were truly deplorable. Therefore, it is 100% correct for people to be angry about these actions and call them out as wrong. Yet Wray opts to completely ignore the wrongness of his own agency’s actions and instead to condemn the people who are (correctly) objecting to these actions! Contrary to what Wray seems to believe, pointing out that someone has done something wrong is not deplorable; doing something wrong is. If someone has done something wrong, as the FBI has in this case, they deserve to be criticized and called out. Neither criticizing, nor calling out, not being angry about wrongdoing is a problem. The wrongdoing itself is the problem, and that is what needs to be condemned, not the people voicing their opposition and anger.

And while I agree that committing and/or threatening violence against anyone is not an ideal way to express one’s anger, Wray in his comment about violence similarly ignores the wrongdoing of his own agency in his haste to condemn his agency’s critics. Instead of scrutinizing and condemning the ways in which people voice their upset, Wray should be scrutinizing and condemning what his agency did to cause people to be upset in the first place. But as usual in our society, the people who actually did something wrong are given a free pass. The FBI is painted as the victim instead of being held accountable for its role in causing the angry and hostile situation.

Making matters worse, the LA Times’s coverage of the FBI raid and the reaction to it demonstrates the same mindless and morally bankrupt belief that expressing anger in response to an injustice is the problem, as opposed to the injustice itself. The article focuses, using a blatantly critical and condescending tone, on the people who have expressed criticism of, and anger with, the FBI raid, while letting the perpetrators of the raid completely off the hook. The article bemoans the “threats and calls to arms in those corners of the internet favored by right-wing extremists” and quotes several alleged examples found on the social media app Gab, which the article describes as “popular with white supremacists and antisemites.” As is the norm among the media establishment, 100% of the scrutiny and criticism falls upon those protesting against injustice, angered by mistreatment, and speaking out against wrongdoing, as opposed to the actual perpetrators of the injustice, mistreatment, and wrongdoing.

Shame on the political and media establishment for treating protesting against wrongdoing as the problem, as opposed to the wrongdoing itself. 

bookmark_borderA protest is not a temper tantrum

One of my biggest pet peeves is when people refer to a protest with which they disagree as a “temper tantrum.”

An example of this is a recent opinion piece describing the Freedom Convoy as a “mass temper tantrum” (via Instagram).

First of all, I’m not sure why this columnist decided to point out that the convoy “won’t end the pandemic.” The goal of the protest isn’t to end the pandemic; it’s to end government policies that violate people’s rights. By pointing out that a pro-freedom protest won’t end the pandemic, this columnist is (falsely) presuming the truth of what they are trying to prove, namely that ending the pandemic is the only thing that matters, that no goals other than ending the pandemic might possibly exist, and that anything that does not contribute towards ending the pandemic is purposeless. 

Second and more importantly, how exactly is a protest a “mass temper tantrum”? The fact that a particular person does not agree with a protest does not make that protest a temper tantrum. A temper tantrum is a specific thing, not simply any protest with which someone disagrees. The fact that someone would use this term to characterize a protest against government policies that take away people’s rights to make their own medical decisions is absolutely despicable. It is also hypocritical, because somehow I doubt that any of those calling the Freedom Convoy a “temper tantrum” used the same words to describe the BLM riots during which people violently destroyed irreplaceable works of art because a police officer killed someone who happened to be black (a situation in which the phrase “temper tantrum” would be a lot more appropriate).

The practice of calling a protest with which one disagrees a “temper tantrum” needs to end yesterday. It is completely unacceptable, and anyone who does it should be immediately fired.

(By the way, with regards to the member of the Freedom Convoy who was photographed holding a Confederate flag, I agree with the Virginia Flaggers, who wrote that the flag is “a universal symbol of rebellion against tyranny.”)