Newsom closed schools for 18 months. Banned families from seeing dying relatives. Arrested surfers for being alone in the ocean. Drove businesses into bankruptcy with endless lockdowns. Meanwhile, Newsom sat at the French Laundry doing whatever the hell this is.

🎁 I'm in the running to win a #SnapmakerU1 thanks to @snapmaker #giveaway #Snapmaker10thAnniversary wn.nr/bK7UbMg

🚨 POLYPALOOZA IS BACK! 🚨 A thank you to the Polymaker community, our biggest giveaway returns! 📅 June 9–18 | LIVE winners June 20 👉 shop.polymaker.com/polypaloo… #Polypalooza #3DPrinting #Giveaway #Polymaker

Rolling Stone really thought this was a flex? A man loses his home in a catastrophic fire… watches his community burn… then decides to run for office because he believes leadership failed the city… and their response is basically: “LOL remember reality TV?” Interesting. When people on the Left turn personal tragedy into political activism, media outlets call it “courage,” “healing,” and “finding purpose.” But when someone outside their ideology does it… suddenly it becomes mockery. That Palisades fire was not just random fate. People have been raising concerns for years about preparedness, infrastructure, water access, response times, brush management, homelessness related fire risks, and government competence. Residents watched one of the wealthiest cities in America struggle to protect entire neighborhoods. So why SHOULDN’T somebody directly impacted run on fixing it? Debate his ideas. Debate his qualifications. Debate his policies. But using the loss of his family home as a sarcastic punchline says more about Rolling Stone than Spencer Pratt. “History suggests otherwise”? Okay. Then let’s discuss the history of LA leadership: sky high homelessness, rising disorder, business flight, housing insanity, fire management failures, and residents increasingly feeling abandoned by the people running the city. Maybe voters are exhausted with polished career politicians and want somebody furious enough to challenge the machine. Mocking disaster victims because they stepped outside approved democrat politics is not journalism. It is narrative enforcement. #LosAngeles #RollingStone #SpencerPratt #MediaBias #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

Sounds like a hell of a way to turn donor outrage into a business model. Not a stretch at all.

See? When it comes to Israel you lose all your composure. Even a post from your own countrymen. That's called unhinged. Therapy. Seek it. Again, I like you. I want better for you. The Israel issue is going to eat you from the inside.

Now that the @Dodgers won, please go vote No on Prop 50, LA 🙏🏼

California’s congressional districts are already 83% Democratic. Now Gavin Newsom wants to spend $282M to gerrymander even more seats. California is in decline. We can’t keep giving the same failing leaders more power. No on Prop 50.

I'm Dead youtu.be/M-gZuFcEu0E?si=l_ZD… via @YouTube RIP Paul The world lost a good one today.

UNRWA Spent Months Denying It Works With Hamas. Then It Fired Nine Staffers for Participating in the Oct. 7 Massacre. freebeacon.com/national-secu…

Hey guys our country is bankrupt, the markets are crashing, you can't buy groceries and you'll never own a home but Kamala Harris is a woman and black

"He wasn't asking for anything other than peace." lmaooooo oh my god the terrorist sympathizing here is off the charts. How long have you been simping for Hamas and terrorism? You are an absolute gas lit cnt.

The only reason Israel hasn't killed all the Muslims is that they have innate decency. The only reason Muslims haven't killed all the Israelis is that they're utterly incompetent.

Gavin Newsom would appreciate it if you didn't retweet this video of him apologizing for getting caught sleeping with his campaign manager's wife

As is often the case with a shooting that breaks into the national debate, we already see celebrities, media elites, and others lining up to talk down to conservatives about how heartless they are being for not passing more gun laws. To understand this apparent conservative intransigence on guns, you have to be aware of a few points: 1. Conservatives do not have any power in most large cities. Kansas City, for example, has had only Democrat mayors since 1930, save for one exception who left office back in 1991. Given these cities have completely rejected them politically, conservatives don't feel particularly responsible for their plight. 2. Much of Hollywood hates conservatives and makes that clear. Being a conservative usually means making peace with the fact that most of the artists and other famous people you enjoy following despise your beliefs. Not all, to be sure, but a very large amount. 3. Conservative voters are often not particularly wealthy, with a number of rural towns struggling a lot in recent years. Drugs have become a major problem, as have deaths of despair more generally. 4. They've watched in horror as more and more cities have increasingly let criminals walk with little or no consequences. They also saw rioters go completely unpunished in 2020 because they were rioting for "the right reasons". 5. They increasingly do not identify with the prevailing values of many large cities, which they see as immoral and irresponsible. 6. They've always had guns, and lots of them. They grew up with them and are comfortable around them. There can be problems with guns, namely as a tool for suicide. But murder with them is rare. So poverty, drugs, resentment, and lots of guns. According to the gun control orthodoxy, this should equate to a bloodbath, right? Wrong. Take Missouri as an example. It had 629 gun-related homicides in 2022, a dismal number. But 474 of those were in just two major cities - St. Louis and Kansas City. Dozens of smaller counties did not have a single homicide of any kind, gun-related or otherwise. If Kansas City and St. Louis combined to form their own state with their two million total people, they'd have a gun-related homicide rate of 23.7 per 100,000 people. The rest of Missouri, with a remaining population of over four million people? 3.7 per 100,000. About six times less. So popular culture, famous athletes and the major media come demanding of these people that they have to curtail their own rights, because cities in which they have no power can't get their shit together? When the leaders of those cities constantly talk down to them and despise them, no less? Why would you expect these conservative-leaning populations to listen to your lectures? You've accepted none of their ideas, you've tried the same thing over and over for decades, and the resulting high violent crime is, to them, entirely predictable. We've seen that it doesn't have to be this way. Look at what Mayor Suarez, one of the few Republican big city mayors, has accomplished in Miami. Contrary to racist views that success in big cities are limited to those that are very white, Miami is a very diverse city where white people make up less than half the population. It also had a horrifyingly violent past in relatively recent history ("The Year of Dangerous Days" by Nicholas Griffin is quite a good read on that topic). In 1980, homicides in the city reached an astonishing 220 dead. Last year, Miami had 31 homicides. That's the lowest in its history. In 1947, the first year they counted, it had 32, and the population back then was much lower than today. This is in a state that enacted constitutional carry recently too, for all those who warned that too would be a disaster. It hasn't been a problem. So quit lecturing conservatives, quit demanding others compromise their rights, and quit voting for the same failed leadership pushing the same trash ideologies of government dependence, tolerance for criminality, and failure. The continued devastation seen in cities like Kansas City is the CHOICE of its voters. And until they make a different one, they have only themselves to blame.

I wasn't sure that I wanted to talk about this any further besides pointing out how it's silly that Brady calls reading CDC data a "study". I feel like I've said my piece on this topic. I guess all that's really left to say is that this topic is completely demoralizing and discussions about it lead nowhere. Gun control activists call you racist for bringing it up at all because any examination of it makes them confront difficult truths about their assumptions, while a lot of people on my own side of the debate make 13/52 jokes without any interest in actually solving this problem. To recap my thoughts for any newer followers: People like to talk vaguely about a "gun violence" problem, but gun control proponents rarely get as specific as Brady did here because of what it reveals. Put simply, the fact that a significant majority of our gun-related homicides happen in one minority community (and really, a subset of that community) obliterates the gun control argument's core premise. White Americans own by far the most guns per capita of any demographic in the world. If the gun control assumption that more guns lead to more violence is true, then white Americans should have world-leading homicide rates. They don't, not even close. Yet for Black Americans, the homicide rates are so dramatically higher it's like they live in a different country entirely. But I've talked about all this before. It's not news. Quite the opposite, its catastrophically routine. We've all just kind of accepted that its normal that this racially disparate violence is going to happen. This is enabled by the tragic marriage of the African American community and progressivism. I understand why this marriage originally happened back during the civil rights movement. But any debt African Americans "owed" for that has long been paid, and they should make a change. Just as they finally "let Lincoln die" in gradually turning to the Democrats after the New Deal, so too should they demand a new vision today instead of continuing to vote for deadly failure. The war on poverty and its welfare state, implemented with good intentions, has created devastating dependence and shattered the black family. The war on drugs (which was on both parties, to be fair) led to a lot of fatherless homes, which is another strong predictor of criminality. Recent "progressive DAs" have overcorrected and not prosecuted actual criminals, turning cities like Oakland into hellholes that businesses must flee. And when that happens, it's no wonder teenagers and young men turn to crime. Today, the Democrat party offers no real solution to their blighted inner cities. They blame gun laws because if they didn't, they'd have to blame their own failing governance, given in most cases they have had uninterrupted control of these cities for generations. The recent surge of non-gun-related crimes like smash and grabs exposes them. No, it's not the guns, it is the soft bigotry of low expectations and the normalization, even celebration, of toxic cultures. Progressives have failed the Black community, for decades. Yet they keep getting their vote, over and over and over. Why? Because Republicans aren't really competing for it. They aren't making serious attempts at inroads with Black Americans. This isn't something that can change overnight, but it can change gradually. The vision here should be clear: "We will make your communities safer by putting violent criminals behind bars, but we will not repeat the mistakes of the past and lock men up en masse for victimless crimes. We will encourage business and economic opportunity to return, so your sons do not feel like their only option is gangs and the drug market. We will return order and dignity to your lives. Maybe St. Louis won't become Boise overnight, but we will make every effort to get it closer to that." Instead, we go in circles with the same old arguments, and nothing ever changes. Dems keep power in blighted cities, crime keeps them from ever recovering, and those Dems blame guns instead of their governance. So, thanks to Brady for unexpectedly being the one to bring up this topic, but their "solution" of more gun control will only erode constitutional rights while not solving the core problem, because the core problem has nothing to do with guns. It's a broken and abused community stuck in the socio-political equivalent of a bad relationship.

Here is @JacobDCharles's article in Slate today, and my criticisms of it. I usually avoid tagging him because I don't want to be a bother, but as I'm launching into a criticism it would be cowardly not to let him know. "Last month, in Carralero v. Bonta, a federal judge in Orange County declared it unconstitutional to prohibit guns in a host of places California had designated gun-free." Never before in its history has California banned carry in the places our lawsuit challenged. It's misleading to not make clear from the start that the injunction preserves the status quo. "Those spaces include not just quintessentially sensitive places like banks, playgrounds, and hospitals, but also the parking lots of schools and government buildings, even particularly sensitive ones like police stations, prisons, and primary and secondary schools." Here, Jake sadly plays on the ignorance of his antigun readers. What makes these places "quintessentially sensitive?" Most of these places existed prior to 1900 without banning carry. As we pointed out in our briefing, NO STATE banned legal carry in banks prior to Bruen. And an Obama-appointed Hawaii judge agreed, issuing a similar ruling in August against that state's law. There was much less outrage about that injunction because when a Dem-appointed judge strikes down a law, it destroys the narrative of this being about out of control Republican appointees. "The court rejected legislation like Texas’ 1870 law barring guns in any place “where persons are assembled for educational, literary or scientific purposes” as insufficiently similar or representative to support SB2’s ban on guns in museums, libraries, and hospitals. It found nothing to save the prohibition on bringing guns to “a playground or public or private youth center.” Of course it did. Because that's what Bruen says to do, Jake. When a place existed in the past, and carry was not banned within it, that is evidence that the restriction is unconstitutional. Moreover, the Texas law was a huge outlier. This isn't about finding one single analogue and proclaiming victory, you need a REPRESENTATIVE historical tradition. It's arguable whether that means "majority" - perhaps a large minority of states can suffice. But it's not arguable that a couple outliers is insufficient. Bruen rejected that. "You might think that this prohibition is both sensible and closely connected to the rationale for why gun prohibitions in schools are acceptable, like the need to protect vulnerable populations" Protect them against who? We presented data, which the State did not even try to rebut, that those with CCW permits are overwhelmingly law-abiding. This betrays that Jake unconsciously assumes people with CCW permits are criminals, even with California's high level of vetting. And of course actual criminals are not going to be stopped by SB2. "Carralero’s reading of Bruen and the historical record would guarantee more guns in sensitive spaces. Under its logic, parking areas connected to courthouses, jails, polling places, and legislative assemblies must now be gun-welcome zones. So too must be libraries, zoos, museums, playgrounds, parks, and public transit." Parking lots are not sensitive places, and its silly to think otherwise. Some curtilage may be sensitive, like the White House lawn, but that is rare. And the "public transit" bit is especially malicious, because if carry can be banned on public transit, then you have effectively taken away a constitutional right from everyone who relies on public transportation. Justice Alito in oral argument had specifically singled out people who ride the subway late at night as needing the right to carry. "Rather than stingily splice the historical sources, as the Carralero court did, those judges drew upon the historical principles that justified locational restrictions." No, they bent over backwards to do as much damage to the right to carry as they could. If places existed in the past, Bruen DOES NOT allow for analogical reasoning, which is reserved for new problems and new technologies. To the extent people legally carrying in, for example, a bank is a "problem", it is not a new one. Your law review article called for narrowing Bruen from below. Citing it as some kind of authority on how to properly apply Bruen just proved the Second Circuit was not interested in a faithful application. "The challengers win on every claim they make, something I’m hard-pressed to recall happening in any other wide-ranging challenge to gun laws post-Bruen, despite reading hundreds of these decisions." It happened in Wolford, for Hawaii's version of SB2. An Obama-appointed judge enjoined everything challenged. While they challenged less than we did, it still included banks, bars, parks, beaches, the vampire rule, and parking lots of most government buildings as well as the parking lots of every other place challenged. "The court dispenses with all of the challenges to California’s law in a lean 43 pages, dwarfing the tome-length 261 pages it took the 2nd Circuit to review similar restrictions, or the 184 pages a New York federal district court took to assess that state’s post-Bruen sensitive-place law." Well, half that New York ruling was permit issuance questions, it wasn't all sensitive places. But even so, Bruen is not a complicated analysis. YOU want to make it complex, so just about all gun control laws can be upheld. "The irony here is that the great weight of empirical evidence suggests that the proliferation of guns in public places makes them less safe, not more. So, in an important sense, the ruling creates its own reality." Again, we presented extensive evidence to the Court that people with CCW permits are the most law abiding demographic in this country, using government data from four different states. The court itself identified only four examples in over a decade of Californians with CCW permits committing violent crimes (over 100,000 have such permits). The State did not even try to rebut this data. You are the one "creating your own reality" here Jake. The article concludes with the typical criticism of Bruen. Jake does not mention the vampire rule, which demonstrates the animus behind SB2. He also does not mention that the author of SB2, Senator Portantino, confirmed that his aim is to ban carry everywhere but streets and sidewalks. Does that sound like a "general right to public carry"? I like Jake personally. He's a thoughtful guy, and some of his criticisms of Bruen are fair (though not really the ones here). But just as I don't hide that I am a Second Amendment rights activist, he and most others in academia should stop pretending they are anything but gun control activists. slate.com/news-and-politics/…

Fuck the @NFL Pay for the Sunday ticket. Then pay for prime to watch Thursday games. Then pay for Peacock to watch this dumb ass Saturday game. Fuck you.

Never let evil people make you ashamed of your 2a right to defend yourself.