Links from other news sources. Racism Reprints from others.

Blame Macron for Europe’s migrant crisis, not Meloni To have accused Italy of mishandling it could be construed as hypocrisy of the highest order.

Hits: 4

Blame Macron for Europe’s migrant crisis, not Meloni. To have accused Italy of mishandling it could be construed as hypocrisy of the highest order.

France and Germany have fallen out again after the French interior minister Gérald Darmanin accused Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni of incompetence in her handling of the migrant crisis. In response, Itay’s foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, has canceled a meeting in Paris scheduled for Friday and he is demanding an apology from Darmanin for his “vulgar insults.” Meloni has put on hold her own visit to Paris, which was due to take place next month, according to the Italian press.

It’s not the first time the interior minister has outraged a neighbor. Twelve months ago, Darmanin was accused of wrongly laying the blame for the chaos that erupted in Paris during the Champions League final on Liverpool fans. In fact, they and the Real Madrid supporters were the victims of the lawlessness that has come to characterize the French capital in recent years. It took many weeks before Darmanin issued an apology through gritted teeth.

It’s not Meloni Darmanin should be attacking but the leader of his own country

His latest blunder is more serious, given the gravity of the situation in the Mediterranean: so far this year an estimated 40,000 migrants have crossed into Italy. This is having ramifications for France with a record number of unaccompanied minors breaching their border with Italy in March.

But instead of trying to work together to resolve the crisis, Darmanin used a radio interview on Thursday morning to attack Italy. Asked about recent comments made by Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party regarding the worsening crisis on the Franco-Italian border, Darmanin retorted, “Madame Meloni, a far-right government chosen by Madame Le Pen’s friends, is incapable of solving the migration problems on which she was elected.”

Darmanin first angered Rome in November when he and Meloni had words following Italy’s refusal to allow an NGO migrant vessel to dock. France directed the ship to one of its ports, but not before the Italian prime minister criticized Darmanin’s “aggressive, incomprehensible and unjustified” reaction towards her country.

Tajani’s visit to Paris was supposed to be part of the reconciliation process, but that now lies in tatters thanks once more to Darmanin.

“The insults towards the government and Italy uttered by minister Darmanin are unacceptable,” announced Tajani in a tweet. “This is not the spirit in which common European challenges should be addressed.”

His French counterpart, Catherine Colonna, clearly embarrassed by the row, spoke subsequently to Tajani on the phone. “I told him that relations between Italy and France are based on reciprocal respect, between our two countries and their leaders,” she said. “I hope to be able to welcome him in Paris soon.”

Many commentators in France were surprised Darmanin survived the Stade de France scandal, and this latest diplomatic disaster will once again raise questions over his suitability for office. His petulant comments are perhaps an indication of the huge strain he is under, domestically and internationally. The police handling of the pension reform protests has drawn criticism from home and abroad, most recently from the United Nations. Then, last week on the Indian Ocean island of Mayotte (a French Department), Darmanian was humiliated by a local court which put a stop to his attempt to evict illegal immigrants.

To have accused Italy of mishandling a migrant crisis could therefore be construed as hypocrisy of the highest order, a point made by Jordan Bardella, the president of the National Rally.

“With Gérald Darmanin as minister of the interior, France is beating all immigration records,” he tweeted. “A record that disqualifies him from giving the slightest lesson in firmness to our Italian neighbors.”

As undiplomatic as Darmanin’s remarks were, they hit a nerve in Rome, where there is growing despair at the soaring numbers of migrants landing on their shores. Last month, Italy declared a six-month state of emergency. But what unfolds in southern Europe will inevitably have repercussions in France and Britain, two of the most popular destinations for those making the voyage across the Mediterranean.

France’s response to all this seems to be insults and inertia; in February, Darmanin made a great play about the tough new immigration bill that would address the crisis. It was supposed to be presented to the Senate in March; then it was pushed back to the early summer. Last week, prime minister Elisabeth Borne announced it won’t be examined until the fall at the earliest. She cited a lack of cooperation between the governing Renaissance party and the center-right Republicans as the reason for its delay; their support will be needed in parliament. In reality, the division is within Macron’s own party, many of whom are opposed to any stringent crackdown on illegal immigration.

Herein lies the bitter truth for Darmanin, one of the few ministers in Macron’s government who genuinely understands the seriousness of the migrant crisis. It’s not Meloni he should be attacking but the leader of his own country. Macron has been in office longer than most EU heads of states, and since the departure of Angela Merkel in December 2021 he has regarded himself as the Union’s senior statesman. He therefore should take the initiative in co-ordinating a robust response to the chaos in the Mediterranean.

That was the ambition outlined by Macron in one of his first major speeches as president in September 2017. In an address entitled “Initiative for Europe,” Macron stressed both the urgency of the situation and the need for co-operation.

“In the coming years, Europe will have to accept that its major challenge lies there,” he said of the migrant crisis. “So long as we leave some of our partners submerged under massive arrivals without helping them manage their borders; so long as our asylum procedures remain slow and disparate; so long as we are incapable of collectively organizing the return of migrants not eligible for asylum, we will lack both effectiveness and humanity.”

But Europe has proved incapable of accepting the challenge. The number of migrants grows, and so do the insults between member states. Instead of effectiveness and humanity there is just ineffectiveness and humbug.

This article was originally published on The Spectator’s UK website.


Links from other news sources. Racism Reprints from others. WOKE

ALL Forms of Redistribution Are Slavery And every leftist is a kind of slave-owner.

Hits: 15

The article was originally published on Christopher Cook’s Freedom Scale.

All Forms of Redistribution Are Slavery And every leftist is a kind of slave-owner.

Do I have your attention? Good. It’s time for people on the right to wake up.

At this point, I suspect that a majority of Republicans and conservatives have accepted that the welfare state is okay, but that it should be a lot smaller…

It’s okay to have welfare and Social Security and Medicaid and transfer payments of all sorts—we should just have less of them. They should be managed better. We should tailor them to reduce dependence.

No. No no no no no.

If this describes you, then I am talking to you. And though I will sound intense, I am doing this in solidarity with you, in the hopes of waking you up.

You are wrong. You have accepted a fundamentally evil premise.

You have allowed socialism to colonize your mind, just as it has colonized all of Western civilization.

You have lost the wisdom of our forefathers—as immortalized in the argument of Horatio Bunce to Davy Crockett.

For a modern day illustration, begin by watching this short video from Dinesh D’Souza. Note the two premises of the left:

  1. The original creator of the property, wealth, income, etc. is not the sole claimant upon it.
  2. They (the left, and government) have the authority to control the property and adjudicate between competing claims.

Both claims are not just wrong—they’re moral crimes. In order to explain why, I am going to have to hit you with some philosophy. Don’t tune out! Philosophy—good philosophy—is what made this country. It’s what undergirds the founding documents that you love and the protections they seek to enshrine. If you do not understand the philosophy, then you won’t know why the left is wrong, and why you are wrong to go along with these premies even a little bit.

Start by asking yourself why slavery is morally impermissible. Really think about it. Write your thoughts down. Chances are, you’ll come up with things like this:

Slavery is wrong because it…

  • forces people to labor against their will,
  • forces people into an arrangement they did not choose,
  • forcibly compels a person’s actions and choices,
  • creates a condition wherein one person is legally “owned” by another,
  • imposes punishments for resistance or attempts to escape.

You know, intuitively, that those things are morally forbidden. And yet you accept, to one degree or another, practices that, though they may differ by degree, do these exact same things. And you need to stop. Our whole civilization needs to stop.

So why are these things morally impermissible? Here’s where the philosophy really kicks in. Fortunately, it’s easy. It may sound fancy, but it really is just an expression of things that even toddlers know intuitively.

We begin with the reality of free will. Every individual has personal control over his thoughts, choices, and actions.

An individual may be subjected to forcible compulsion, but no external party can actually think, choose, or act for him. Free will is thus naturally exclusive. Free will is a consequence of personhood, and since no one’s personhood can be unmade, it is naturally inalienable.

This leads to a simple argument in which we demonstrate that free will lies at the heart of human self-ownership:

1. Exclusive, inalienable personal control over thoughts, choices, and actions (free will) grants to each individual exclusive, dispositive decision-making power over his own body and life.

2. The primary characteristic of property rights is exclusive, dispositive decision-making power.

.˙. Free will grants to each individual property rights over his own body and life.

Self-ownership is thus an outgrowth of free will. It is the quality of being the exclusive owner of one’s own body and being—of having a property in one’s own person. Let us then define self-ownership as Dispositive decision-making power over one’s body and life (with all the concomitant rights and responsibilities), rooted in (naturally and morally) exclusive, inalienable personal control over thoughts, choices, and actions.

Dispositive decision-making power over one’s body and life, for short.

Here again, just about everyone knows that their self-ownership is real. Savvy lefties understand that self-ownership stands in the way of their primary objective—taking the property of others by force—and thus may use sophistry to try to deny its reality. But they will react just the same as anyone else when their self-ownership is directly violated—because even they know it’s real!

Now let us return to Dinesh D’Souza’s discussion of the flute. It was created by one person: the girl who used her mind and her labor to take a previously unowned thing and convert it. This process is an outgrowth of her free will and self-ownership. Her property rights in her own person have extended to property rights in the thing she made. It is hers…and hers alone. Her property right is grounded in a natural and moral reality.

Where would any other claim come from? The utilitarian claim (the flute should go to the person who would play it the best) and the leftist claim (the flute should go to the person who “needs” it the most) have no such grounding. They are opinions. And actuating those opinions (in the context of a society) requires two things:

  1. The violence required to take the flute from the owner, and
  2. A “legitimate” entity empowered to deploy that violence, i.e., government.

Why do you think the left likes big government so much? They want to use violence to take people’s stuff, and government allows them to do so “legally” and “legitimately.” It also gives them jobs and power, which requires that more stuff be taken by force to fund those jobs and create that power.

Are you catching on yet?

It’s a racket. The racket provides money and power to the left’s operatives and feeds the bottomless narcissism of its virtue-signaling rank-and-filers. It’s not noble. It’s just a modernized and legitimized iteration of the age-old human strategy of taking, by force, that which has been produced by another. It’s nothing more than that, and you should not be supporting it in any form.

So as to keep the main text of this article short, I will put into the footnotes

the arguments for why the initiation of coercive force against self-ownership is itself morally impermissible. We will take those as understood.

Now, return to our list of reasons why slavery is morally impermissible. They all are demonstrably wrong because they all violate one’s dispositive decision-making power over one’s body and life. They all violate self-ownership.

Our system of “legitimized” forced redistribution does the same thing It…

  • forces you to labor for the benefit of others, against your will;
  • forces you into an arrangement you did not choose;
  • forcibly compels your actions and choices;
  • imposes punishment if you resist or try to escape.

These are all clear. The last one—the concept of “ownership” of the “slave” may seem like more of a stretch, but wargame it out just a little bit…

A slave is kept in his condition by force. So are you. A slave is punished if he resists. So are you. (Try not paying your taxes for a while and watch what happens.) The slave has been forced into an arrangement he did not choose, and so have you. The slave cannot opt out and neither can you. You may enjoy dispositive decision-making power over your body and life in some areas, but not in this one. When it comes to the redistributive state, you are, in essence, a slave. If there is a difference, it is one of degree, not of kind.

Do not fool yourself into believing that “voting” gives you some sort of choice. Voting is nothing but a wish, cast into the wind, and all the incentives of democracy are a gale pushing the whole of society towards more redistribution. Never less. (Search your feelings, Luke—you know this is true.)

The people who run the redistributive state, and those who support it and fuel its continuance, believe that your stuff does not belong to you. They believe that they have a license to forcibly violate your self-ownership—the foundation of your rights as a human person. They believe that they, and their agents in government, have the legitimate right to determine what stuff of yours they steal, and how much, and when, and to whom it will be given, and what punishment you will suffer if you resist.

EVERY kind of redistribution is a species of slavery. (Even when the intended recipient is the most sympathetic of characters.) And EVERY person who actively engages in redistribution, or who empowers those who do, is a kind of slave owner.

Do not mince words. Do not dither about on the margins, wondering exactly how much moral crime is allowable.

Take a stand.

We can acknowledge the impact of biology, upbringing, circumstances, external influences, and even luck, but the reality of free will remains. Biology and upbringing can be analogized to the earth beneath our feet, and our external circumstances to the sky above—yet in spite of these, each of us still chooses how we move upon that ground and weather life’s storms. Free will is real!


Ontological/automatic/birthright authority does not exist. All authority must either be granted or imposed upon the unwilling by means of coercive force. Any attempt to refute this claim produces a performative contradiction: Anyone who asserts automatic authority MUST use force to impose it upon anyone unwilling to grant that authority. The same applies when asserting a claim of authority on behalf of another.

The unavoidable use of the claim in the attempted refutation raises the claim to the level of an axiom. The absence of ontological authority is a natural fact. Authority is, in essence, the license to compel the actions and choices of others, and no one has this license as a mere fact of his existence. So…

1. Authority is imposed upon the unwilling by means of the initiation of coercive force.

2. No one has ontological authority (automatic authority as a mere fact of his existence) over any other.

.˙.  No one has the ontological authority to initiate coercive force upon the unwilling.

The ontological authority to initiate coercive force against another does not exist, and the initiation of any such force is morally impermissible. As shorthand, then, we will say that the initiation of coercive force is ontologically and morally impermissible.

Relating this back to self-ownership…

The natural facts of reality confer upon the individual a property right—that is, exclusive, dispositive decision-making power—in his own person. Such a right constitutes a just moral claim; it came about as the result of an organic process (birth and life), and its exercise does not inherently coerce any other (save for the natural, temporary, and generally welcomed period during which parents must care for their children). Thus,

1. A naturally exclusive, inalienable property right in one’s own person (self-ownership) constitutes a just moral claim.

2. Violation of a just moral claim is morally impermissible.

3. The just moral claim of self-ownership is violated by the initiation of coercive force.

.˙. The initiation of coercive force against self-ownership is morally impermissible.


Of course, we’ve just dealt with redistribution and welfare here. Later, we’ll have to tackle taxation and government in general. But just focus on this for now. Baby steps!



Politics Racism Sports WOKE

LSU’S Reece and Iowa’s Clark played a good game. Jill Biden played a game of racism.

Hits: 12

LSU’S Reece and Iowa’s Clark played a good game. Jill Biden played a game of racism. Jill Biden took a great basketball game and made it about race. Now I see where Joe gets it from.

There was no racism. Reece took it to Clark and the better team won. But Jill who felt the LSU team and Reece needed to have a white superstar along side the black girl. Signs of Jill showing her inner White Plantationist side.

And those folks who said Reece showed racism and disrespect towards Clark? Bull Reece did what Clark has done in the past.

Iowa lost so they do not go to the White House. To the victor belongs the spoils.


Elections Links from other news sources. Racism Reprints from others. Work Place

San Francisco elections official released from contact because he is white, male.

Hits: 35

“Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan.”

The San Francisco elections director is out of a job after the Elections Commission voted not to renew his contract despite his successful 20-year record because he is a white male.

In a 4-2 vote in a closed session last week, the commission declined to renew a fifth five-year contract for John Arntz so that the city could “take action” on its “racial equity plan.”

Commission officials recognized Arntz’s impeccable service, but said the decision came down to racial equity.

Commission president Chris Jerdonek wrote in an email obtained by local outlets, “Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan and give people an opportunity to compete for a leadership position.”

This is the same commission that in 2021 wrote to the mayor that “San Francisco runs one of the best elections in the country and we believe this transparent process has allowed us to continue to improve our elections.”

In 2020, it wrote a commendation to Arntz “for his incredible leadership … The Department successfully ran two elections this year while facing significant challenges, including national threats to election security, mandatory vote-by-mail operations to all registered voters, the anticipated increase in voter participation, budget cuts, and the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The city’s Democratic Mayor London Breed objected to the commission’s vote and said, “John Arntz has served San Francisco with integrity, and professionalism and has stayed completely independent.”

“He’s remained impartial and has avoided getting caught up in the web of City politics, which is what we are seeing now as a result of this unnecessary vote. Rather than working on key issues to recover and rebuild our City, this is a good example of unfair politicization of a key part of our government that is working well for the voters of this city.”

Division Manager Mayank Patel said in an email to the department, which included a letter signed by 11 other division managers supporting Arntz’s renewal, “We are gravely concerned that the Elections Commission is actively seeking to remove John Arntz from his employment as the Director of Elections.”

“Under the leadership of Director Arntz, our department successfully conducted over thirty public elections and rebuilt the public’s confidence in the city’s elections processes from the ground up. All of us have worked with Director Arntz and we know that under his experienced and proven leadership, we will continue to provide city voters with excellent service while fulfilling our mission of conducting free, fair, and functional elections for many years to come.”
City Attorney David Chiu said he was “mystified” by the commission’s decision noting, “some folks have forgotten the history of this department.” He added, “Before Director Arntz, we had five directors in as many years, ballot boxes floating in the bay, and an intense lack of confidence in city elections.”


Links from other news sources. Racism Stupid things people say or do.

From the Joy Reid school of Racism, Bigotry, and Hispanic hate. Latinos voting Republican cause they’re really white.

Hits: 25

From the Joy Reid school of Racism, Bigotry, and Hispanic hate. Latinos voting Republican cause they’re really white. What happened to the we need Latinos to come here even if undocumented? Now a small group of progressive race baiters are claiming that Latinos are really white folk. And they might even be proud boys. But fear not ladies,  the undocumented in California are still drinking the Kool – Aid. No reports yet if they’re hanging out at Popeye’s.


Links from other news sources. Medicine Opinion Progressive Racism Racism Science

Twitter restores the tweet. I’ll take his credentials over a group of loons any day. Florida’s Surgeon General.

Hits: 40

Recently the Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo MD, PhD.  released an analysis on the COVID- 19 mRNA vaccines. Right away he and his scientists and medical experts were attacked. Going on Fake News his Tweet was removed. But I have to believe that with a great outcry from the medical community his tweet and the medical proof was put back up.

Recently a link was sent to me from a obscure far left website that attacked his credentials. Granted they all play as medical experts on the internet, but how do their medical credentials compare?


Here’s Dr. Ladapo’s Credentials.

He attended college at Wake Forest University, and earned an MD and a PhD in Health Policy from Harvard University.[ He completed a residency and fellowship in internal medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. He was a professor of medicine at New York University and UCLA. He became acting Florida surgeon general in September 2021,



Links from other news sources. Racism Reprints from others.

Supreme Court Can End US ‘Racialization’

Hits: 20

Thanks to the folks over at Newsmax.

The Supreme Court’s review of affirmative action might “finally and correctly” remove race as “a factor” in government decisions, legal expert Alan Dershowitz said on Newsmax.

“First of all, the affirmative action case goes beyond affirmative action: It may decide, finally and correctly, that race cannot be used as a factor by the government,” Dershowitz told Saturday’s “America Right Now.”

“It’s like religion. The Constitution specifically says no religious test, and I think this case may really give rise to a strong statement against the racialization of America. That would be a very good thing.”

Dershowitz also reiterated his concern over the weaponization of the criminal justice system against political opponents, as might unfold with prosecution of Hunter Biden or former President Donald Trump.

“I hate the weaponization of crime on either side,” Dershowitz added to host Tom Basile. “I don’t think people should be targeted because of who they are, whether it’s Donald Trump or Hunter Biden. But, look, if the facts come out and support strongly a criminal prosecution, well, that’s the way it has to be.”

Notably, Trump might be rooting for Hunter Biden to not be charged, because charging Hunter Biden might just be a precursor to suggesting a political prosecution of President Joe Biden’s political enemy can be justified, according to Dershowitz.

“The point I want to make, which is counterintuitive, is the man who should be rooting most strongly for Biden not to be indicted is Donald Trump, because if Hunter is charged, it increases the chances that the government could say, Well, look, we’re not biased; we charged the son of the president, we certainly will charge the former president as well.”

Dershowitz also weighed in on his lawsuit against CNN, who Trump has now also sued.

“CNN is entitled to their opinions, but they’re not entitled to their facts,” Dershowitz concluded. “They’re not entitled to make up facts, and if they have a consistent pattern of making up facts, then I think that will go to a jury.

“And then, of course, and anybody’s guess as to how a jury will decide the case.”


Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights