Dear Protect Kamala Harris, OH, THE STUNNING INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY OF COMPARING KAMALA HARRIS TO PETE HEGSETH WHILE CONVENIENTLY OMITTING LITERALLY EVERYTHING ABOUT THEIR ACTUAL QUALIFICATIONS. LET'S BREAK THIS DOWN, SHALL WE? First, let's address the elephant in the room that you're desperately trying to ignore: JOE BIDEN HIMSELF PUBLICLY DECLARED HE WOULD ONLY CHOOSE A BLACK WOMAN AS HIS RUNNING MATE. Not the most qualified candidate. Not the most accomplished candidate. A BLACK WOMAN. He said this OUT LOUD. On camera. Multiple times. That's literally the DEFINITION of a diversity, equity, and inclusion hire. When Biden was vetting VP candidates, his own team's documents showed that Amy Klobuchar was considered MORE QUALIFIED than Kamala Harris. But Biden had already committed to choosing based on race and gender rather than merit. That's not Republicans making this up - THAT'S DOCUMENTED FACT FROM BIDEN'S OWN VETTING PROCESS. Now let's talk about Harris's "Harvard degree and 20 years of experience." Her Harvard law degree is certainly impressive. But what did she DO with that experience? As California's Attorney General and San Francisco's District Attorney, she oversaw San Francisco's transformation into one of the most crime-ridden, homeless-infested cities in America, kept people imprisoned BEYOND their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state, withheld evidence that would have freed innocent people from prison, laughed about prosecuting parents for their kids' truancy, and never won a statewide primary vote as a presidential candidate - dropping out before even Iowa. When she ran for president in 2020, she polled at TWO PERCENT and dropped out before a single primary vote was cast. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REJECTED HER OVERWHELMINGLY. She didn't earn the nomination - she inherited it when Biden stepped aside, and Democrats installed her WITHOUT A SINGLE PRIMARY VOTE because they were stuck with the DEI hire who happened to already be VP. Now let's discuss Pete Hegseth, whom you dismissively call "some random guy on Fox News." Pete Hegseth is a Princeton graduate with a Master's degree in Public Policy from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government - THE SAME HARVARD YOU'RE TOUTING FOR HARRIS. He served 20 YEARS in the military, including combat deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. He's a decorated combat veteran with two Bronze Stars and a Combat Infantryman Badge. He led troops in combat. He understands military readiness, morale, and operations FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, not political theory. But sure, call him "some random guy on Fox News" while ignoring that he's exactly the kind of experienced military leader you'd want running the Department of Defense. Here's what's really happening: You're using the racism card to deflect from the OBJECTIVE FACT that Harris was chosen based on identity characteristics rather than qualifications. When someone points out that she was explicitly selected for her race and gender, you scream "RACIST" to shut down the conversation. But let me ask you this: If a white male candidate had polled at 2% in presidential primaries, dropped out before a single vote, never won a competitive election outside their home state, was selected because the president publicly committed to choosing someone of their specific race and gender, and been installed as nominee without a single primary vote - would you consider them QUALIFIED based on merit, or would you question how they got there? THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS. And that's the entire point about DEI. The irony here is STUNNING. You're claiming Republicans are racist for pointing out that Biden EXPLICITLY chose Harris based on race and gender, which HE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED HE WOULD DO. We're not making up the DEI selection - BIDEN LITERALLY TOLD US THAT'S WHAT HE WAS DOING. Meanwhile, you're attacking Hegseth's qualifications while he has an Ivy League education (same as Harris), a Harvard graduate degree (same institution as Harris), 20 years of military service including combat deployments, personal experience leading troops in war zones, direct knowledge of military operations, readiness, and morale, and a proven track record of service to this country in uniform. But because he appeared on Fox News (while having all these qualifications), you dismiss him as "some random guy" while defending someone who was EXPLICITLY CHOSEN FOR HER RACE AND GENDER. Let me explain something about actual racism: ACTUAL RACISM is treating people differently based on their skin color. Biden saying "I will only consider black women for this position" IS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. He eliminated candidates of all other races and all men from consideration BEFORE EVALUATING QUALIFICATIONS. That's not equality. That's not merit. THAT'S DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS. And pointing out this DOCUMENTED FACT doesn't make Republicans racist. It makes us people who believe positions should be filled based on QUALIFICATIONS, not quotas. You want to talk about what's "almost like Republicans are racist"? Here's what's ACTUALLY happening: Republicans are saying "Choose the most qualified person regardless of race or gender." Democrats are saying "I will only consider people of this specific race and gender." AND SOMEHOW YOU'VE CONVINCED YOURSELF THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE THE RACIST ONES? THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS BREATHTAKING. If Harris had been chosen purely on merit after a competitive evaluation against ALL qualified candidates regardless of race or gender, nobody would question her selection. But that's NOT what happened. Biden publicly committed to discriminating based on identity characteristics, selected Harris accordingly, and now you're attacking people for pointing out THE THING THAT BIDEN HIMSELF ANNOUNCED. Here's the bottom line: Kamala Harris is the Vice President and was the Democratic nominee NOT because she was the most qualified candidate, NOT because she earned it through competitive primaries, NOT because the American people chose her, but because she checked demographic boxes that Biden publicly committed to prioritizing over all other qualifications. That's the DEFINITION of a DEI hire. And no amount of screaming "RACIST" will change that DOCUMENTED FACT. Pete Hegseth, meanwhile, earned his degrees, served his country in combat for 20 years, and brings direct relevant experience to the Department of Defense. But sure, keep calling him "some random guy" while defending someone who was explicitly selected for her identity characteristics rather than being chosen through merit-based competition. THE IRONY WOULD BE HILARIOUS IF IT WEREN'T SO INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. #MeritNotQuotas #QualificationsOverIdentity #BidenSaidItOutLoud #DEIIsDiscrimination #ActualRacismIsTreatingPeopleDifferently #HarrisWasntChosen #HegsethEarnedIt #StopPlayingTheRaceCard #ObjectiveStandards #FactsOverFeelings [1] Biden's public commitment to choosing a Black woman as VP: Multiple documented statements during 2020 campaign [2] Biden campaign vetting documents showing Klobuchar ranked higher than Harris: Wall Street Journal reporting [3] Hegseth's military service record: Public military records, two Bronze Stars, Combat Infantryman Badge [4] Hegseth's education: Princeton University BA, Harvard Kennedy School MPA

Dear Fred, OH, THE IRONY OF SOMEONE CALLING PETE HEGSETH A "WEAK SMALL MAN" FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EXACT POLICY THAT WILL IDENTIFY AND REMOVE WEAK MEN FROM COMBAT ROLES. THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS ABSOLUTELY STUNNING. Let me walk you through what you apparently missed while crafting your outrage tweet about "removing women from roles they have fought to gain." Hegseth's directive establishes ONE GENDER-NEUTRAL STANDARD for combat positions. Not "male only positions." Not "excluding women." ONE OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL STANDARD THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF GENDER. You know what that means, Fred? It means CAPABLE WOMEN WHO MEET THE STANDARD WILL SERVE IN COMBAT ROLES. And INCAPABLE MEN WHO DON'T MEET THE STANDARD WILL BE REMOVED. The policy LITERALLY states: "If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result. So be it. IT WILL ALSO MEAN THAT WEAK MEN WON'T QUALIFY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT PLAYING GAMES." So your claim that this is about "removing women" is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. This is about removing INCAPABLE PEOPLE - male or female. Some women will excel where men fail. Some men will excel where women fail. THE STANDARD DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON GENDER. IT DISCRIMINATES BASED ON CAPABILITY. Here's what you're actually upset about: For years, standards were LOWERED to meet diversity quotas. Different physical requirements existed for men and women, and we pretended they were equivalent when they objectively weren't. Women were meeting a FEMALE standard while men were meeting a MALE standard, and then both were placed in the same combat roles where CAPABILITY determines survival. Hegseth is saying: NO MORE SEPARATE STANDARDS. One high standard. Gender-neutral. If you meet it, you're in - male or female. If you don't meet it, you're out - male or female. And you're calling this "removing women from roles they fought to gain"? WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING IS THAT WOMEN CAN'T COMPETE ON EQUAL TERMS. You're arguing that women NEED lowered standards to qualify. THAT'S THE SEXIST POSITION, FRED. Let me tell you something about those women who "fought to gain" combat roles: The truly capable ones WANT this policy. They want to know that everyone around them met the SAME STANDARD. They want to serve alongside warriors who are OBJECTIVELY QUALIFIED, not people who squeaked through on quotas. You know what undermines women's accomplishments? When standards are lowered to let them pass. When people whisper, "She only made it because they changed the requirements." When male soldiers question whether their female teammates are truly capable because they met a different standard. THIS POLICY ELIMINATES THAT DOUBT. Women who meet the standard will have EARNED it on exactly the same terms as men. No asterisks. No qualifications. No "well, she met the female standard." Just: "SHE MET THE STANDARD." But here's where your tweet gets particularly rich. You claim "Pete isn't a Ranger because dozens of women are." WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT? Hegseth served 20 years including combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you suggesting that women becoming Rangers somehow DISQUALIFIES his service? By what twisted logic does that work? And then you call him a "weak small man" for... implementing a policy that will remove WEAK MEN from combat positions? Do you not see the contradiction? He's literally ensuring that weak men WON'T serve in combat roles, and you're attacking him for being weak? THE IRONY IS MAGNIFICENT. Let me be crystal clear about something: I spent 23 years as an Army medic serving alongside men and women in combat zones. I've seen women who could outperform men physically and mentally. I've seen men who couldn't hack it. The CAPABILITY matters. The GENDER doesn't. What Hegseth is doing is establishing TRUE EQUALITY: one objective standard that applies to everyone. Women who meet it will serve with distinction. Men who don't meet it will be removed. THIS IS WHAT EQUAL TREATMENT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE. You want to know what "tearing down accomplishments" actually means? It's when standards are lowered to meet diversity quotas, and then everyone questions whether accomplishments were EARNED or GIVEN. It's when capable women are lumped in with less capable ones who only qualified because requirements were reduced. THIS POLICY VALIDATES CAPABLE WOMEN. It says: "If you can meet the highest standard, you BELONG in combat roles - not because of your gender, but because of your CAPABILITY." The women who will qualify under these standards won't need anyone defending them or making excuses for them. They'll be OBJECTIVELY QUALIFIED warriors who met the same requirements as their male counterparts. Their accomplishments will be UNQUESTIONABLE. But apparently, Fred, you don't think women can compete on equal terms. You think they NEED separate, lower standards to succeed. You're arguing that holding women to the same standard as men is "removing" them from combat roles. THAT'S THE SEXIST POSITION. Not Hegseth's policy of one objective standard for all. Here's what this really comes down to: The military's PRIMARY FUNCTION is not social engineering or equal representation. It's WINNING WARS with minimal American casualties. That requires THE MOST CAPABLE WARRIORS regardless of gender. If capable women can meet the standard, OUTSTANDING. They should serve. If incapable men can't meet the standard, they should be removed. If some combat roles end up with no women because none currently meet the standard, that's not discrimination - THAT'S OBJECTIVE QUALIFICATION. And here's the beautiful part: As women become STRONGER and more CAPABLE through training, more will meet the standard. The path forward isn't LOWERING the bar - it's RAISING women up to meet it. That's ACTUAL empowerment, not the participation trophy feminism you're advocating for. So before you call someone a "weak small man" for implementing policy you clearly don't understand, maybe consider that TRUE EQUALITY means ONE STANDARD FOR ALL. Not different standards that we pretend are the same. Not quotas. Not preferences. CAPABILITY. PERIOD. OH, AND FRED - SINCE YOU'RE SO CONFIDENT CALLING HEGSETH "WEAK" AND "SMALL," HERE'S A PUBLIC CHALLENGE: LET'S SETTLE THIS WITH AN ARMY COMBAT FITNESS TEST (ACFT) COMPETITION. YOU VERSUS HEGSETH. TELEVISED. PUBLIC. THE FULL SIX EVENTS: DEADLIFT, STANDING POWER THROW, HAND-RELEASE PUSH-UPS, SPRINT-DRAG-CARRY, LEG TUCK, AND TWO-MILE RUN. We'll see who the "weak small man" really is when you're both held to THE SAME OBJECTIVE STANDARD. Put your physical capability where your Twitter fingers are, Fred. If he's so weak, this should be easy for you, right? NAME THE TIME AND PLACE. I'LL MAKE SURE IT'S BROADCAST SO EVERYONE CAN WATCH YOU BACK UP YOUR WORDS. Or will you suddenly discover that calling someone names on social media is easier than actually demonstrating superior physical capability? WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE, FRED. THE CHALLENGE IS PUBLIC. THE WORLD IS WATCHING. The women who meet this standard won't need your defense, Fred. They'll be too busy EXCELLING in combat roles they EARNED on exactly the same terms as everyone else. #OneStandardForAll #CapabilityNotGender #TrueEquality #MilitaryExcellence #StrengthKnowsNoGender #MeritMatters #CombatReadiness #EarnedNotGiven #ObjectiveStandards #DefendTheCapable

Dear Fred, OH, THE IRONY OF SOMEONE CALLING PETE HEGSETH A "WEAK SMALL MAN" FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EXACT POLICY THAT WILL IDENTIFY AND REMOVE WEAK MEN FROM COMBAT ROLES. THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS ABSOLUTELY STUNNING. Let me walk you through what you apparently missed while crafting your outrage tweet about "removing women from roles they have fought to gain." Hegseth's directive establishes ONE GENDER-NEUTRAL STANDARD for combat positions. Not "male only positions." Not "excluding women." ONE OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL STANDARD THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF GENDER. You know what that means, Fred? It means CAPABLE WOMEN WHO MEET THE STANDARD WILL SERVE IN COMBAT ROLES. And INCAPABLE MEN WHO DON'T MEET THE STANDARD WILL BE REMOVED. The policy LITERALLY states: "If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result. So be it. IT WILL ALSO MEAN THAT WEAK MEN WON'T QUALIFY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT PLAYING GAMES." So your claim that this is about "removing women" is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. This is about removing INCAPABLE PEOPLE - male or female. Some women will excel where men fail. Some men will excel where women fail. THE STANDARD DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON GENDER. IT DISCRIMINATES BASED ON CAPABILITY. Here's what you're actually upset about: For years, standards were LOWERED to meet diversity quotas. Different physical requirements existed for men and women, and we pretended they were equivalent when they objectively weren't. Women were meeting a FEMALE standard while men were meeting a MALE standard, and then both were placed in the same combat roles where CAPABILITY determines survival. Hegseth is saying: NO MORE SEPARATE STANDARDS. One high standard. Gender-neutral. If you meet it, you're in - male or female. If you don't meet it, you're out - male or female. And you're calling this "removing women from roles they fought to gain"? WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING IS THAT WOMEN CAN'T COMPETE ON EQUAL TERMS. You're arguing that women NEED lowered standards to qualify. THAT'S THE SEXIST POSITION, FRED. Let me tell you something about those women who "fought to gain" combat roles: The truly capable ones WANT this policy. They want to know that everyone around them met the SAME STANDARD. They want to serve alongside warriors who are OBJECTIVELY QUALIFIED, not people who squeaked through on quotas. You know what undermines women's accomplishments? When standards are lowered to let them pass. When people whisper, "She only made it because they changed the requirements." When male soldiers question whether their female teammates are truly capable because they met a different standard. THIS POLICY ELIMINATES THAT DOUBT. Women who meet the standard will have EARNED it on exactly the same terms as men. No asterisks. No qualifications. No "well, she met the female standard." Just: "SHE MET THE STANDARD." But here's where your tweet gets particularly rich. You claim "Pete isn't a Ranger because dozens of women are." WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT? Hegseth served 20 years including combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you suggesting that women becoming Rangers somehow DISQUALIFIES his service? By what twisted logic does that work? And then you call him a "weak small man" for... implementing a policy that will remove WEAK MEN from combat positions? Do you not see the contradiction? He's literally ensuring that weak men WON'T serve in combat roles, and you're attacking him for being weak? THE IRONY IS MAGNIFICENT. Let me be crystal clear about something: I spent 23 years as an Army medic serving alongside men and women in combat zones. I've seen women who could outperform men physically and mentally. I've seen men who couldn't hack it. The CAPABILITY matters. The GENDER doesn't. What Hegseth is doing is establishing TRUE EQUALITY: one objective standard that applies to everyone. Women who meet it will serve with distinction. Men who don't meet it will be removed. THIS IS WHAT EQUAL TREATMENT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE. You want to know what "tearing down accomplishments" actually means? It's when standards are lowered to meet diversity quotas, and then everyone questions whether accomplishments were EARNED or GIVEN. It's when capable women are lumped in with less capable ones who only qualified because requirements were reduced. THIS POLICY VALIDATES CAPABLE WOMEN. It says: "If you can meet the highest standard, you BELONG in combat roles - not because of your gender, but because of your CAPABILITY." The women who will qualify under these standards won't need anyone defending them or making excuses for them. They'll be OBJECTIVELY QUALIFIED warriors who met the same requirements as their male counterparts. Their accomplishments will be UNQUESTIONABLE. But apparently, Fred, you don't think women can compete on equal terms. You think they NEED separate, lower standards to succeed. You're arguing that holding women to the same standard as men is "removing" them from combat roles. THAT'S THE SEXIST POSITION. Not Hegseth's policy of one objective standard for all. Here's what this really comes down to: The military's PRIMARY FUNCTION is not social engineering or equal representation. It's WINNING WARS with minimal American casualties. That requires THE MOST CAPABLE WARRIORS regardless of gender. If capable women can meet the standard, OUTSTANDING. They should serve. If incapable men can't meet the standard, they should be removed. If some combat roles end up with no women because none currently meet the standard, that's not discrimination - THAT'S OBJECTIVE QUALIFICATION. And here's the beautiful part: As women become STRONGER and more CAPABLE through training, more will meet the standard. The path forward isn't LOWERING the bar - it's RAISING women up to meet it. That's ACTUAL empowerment, not the participation trophy feminism you're advocating for. So before you call someone a "weak small man" for implementing policy you clearly don't understand, maybe consider that TRUE EQUALITY means ONE STANDARD FOR ALL. Not different standards that we pretend are the same. Not quotas. Not preferences. CAPABILITY. PERIOD. OH, AND FRED - SINCE YOU'RE SO CONFIDENT CALLING HEGSETH "WEAK" AND "SMALL," HERE'S A PUBLIC CHALLENGE: LET'S SETTLE THIS WITH AN ARMY COMBAT FITNESS TEST (ACFT) COMPETITION. YOU VERSUS HEGSETH. TELEVISED. PUBLIC. THE FULL SIX EVENTS: DEADLIFT, STANDING POWER THROW, HAND-RELEASE PUSH-UPS, SPRINT-DRAG-CARRY, LEG TUCK, AND TWO-MILE RUN. We'll see who the "weak small man" really is when you're both held to THE SAME OBJECTIVE STANDARD. Put your physical capability where your Twitter fingers are, Fred. If he's so weak, this should be easy for you, right? NAME THE TIME AND PLACE. I'LL MAKE SURE IT'S BROADCAST SO EVERYONE CAN WATCH YOU BACK UP YOUR WORDS. Or will you suddenly discover that calling someone names on social media is easier than actually demonstrating superior physical capability? WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE, FRED. THE CHALLENGE IS PUBLIC. THE WORLD IS WATCHING. The women who meet this standard won't need your defense, Fred. They'll be too busy EXCELLING in combat roles they EARNED on exactly the same terms as everyone else. #OneStandardForAll #CapabilityNotGender #TrueEquality #MilitaryExcellence #StrengthKnowsNoGender #MeritMatters #CombatReadiness #EarnedNotGiven #ObjectiveStandards #DefendTheCapable

🔍LAMC Section 12.22 A.33.(c).(1): An Objective Standard or a Discretionary Quagmire?🔍 In my previous post, I discussed Null and Void ADU ordinances and teased a deeper dive into LAMC Section 12.22 A.33.(c).(1). After digging in, it’s clear this section is not only confusing but fundamentally problematic. Here’s the key language from the section: "Comply with all applicable objective provisions required pursuant to Chapter 1 of this Code, including provisions stated in the underlying applicable zone and height district, Specific Plan, Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, Community Planning Implementation Overlay, and other applicable zoning ordinances, policies or other documents established pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 3 of this Code. In any instance where there is conflict, this subdivision shall govern." At first glance, it might seem straightforward. But here’s why this doesn’t align with state law and shouldn’t be implemented: 1️⃣ Not in State Law: This section isn’t found anywhere in California Government Code Sections 66310–66339, which govern ADUs. Without inclusion in state law, how can it be enforced—especially when the City of Los Angeles’ ADU ordinance is currently null and void, as discussed in my previous post? 2️⃣ Ambiguity and Discretion: The section requires compliance with "all applicable objective provisions," yet fails to clearly identify which standards apply to ADUs and which do not. With hundreds of standards across CPIOs, overlay zones, and specific plans, the process becomes inherently discretionary. Even worse, the phrase "In any instance where there is conflict, this subdivision shall govern" further complicates matters by introducing subjective interpretation—exactly what state law seeks to avoid under GC 66313(h). 3️⃣ Undermines State Law: ADUs are governed by state law, which aims to provide a streamlined, ministerial process for approval. Allowing local policies like LAMC Section 12.22 A.33.(c).(1) to govern conflicts with the purpose of state law and creates unnecessary barriers to ADU production. What’s the Solution? If the City of Los Angeles doesn’t have a valid ADU ordinance—and this section isn’t part of state law—how can it be implemented? The answer: It shouldn’t. This section doesn’t make sense and should be removed entirely. Instead, cities should focus on aligning their practices with state law to eliminate delays, reduce confusion, and facilitate ADU development. What do you think? Should cities eliminate overly complicated local policies in favor of a streamlined, state-compliant process? In my next post, we’ll explore the concept of objective design standards, something Rick Cole is working on within the City of Pasadena to create clarity and consistency in the process for Multifamily Housing. Stay tuned! #ADUs #HousingPolicy #LAMC #CaliforniaLaw #ObjectiveStandards #HousingCrisis

📣 We are delighted to announce that Nucleon Security is officially a member of @AMTSO ! #AMTSO #cybersecurity #NucleonSecurity #cybersecurityproducttesting #knowledgesharing #collaboration #objectivestandards #bestpractices #quality #transparency #futureofcybersecurity

By that logic, ANYONE that transitions should compete in the “women’s” category, with their extraordinary times coming from “being happier.” #Nope #ObjectiveStandards Don’t kid yourself - lots of miserable people are very successful and visa versa - see #TheWeightOfGold

Broadcasting #NewInformation with ZERO accountability for #ObjectiveStandards for weight of #Fact or #Fiction does INDEED qualify to make one a #CredibleNewsCaster!!! HOWEVER... #Journalism bears #WeightOfResponsibility for #JournalingFact while #DisprovingFiction! #NOTtheSame