8th Circuit Does What SCOTUS Should Have

On August 23, the 8th Circuit court found in favour of Carl and Angel Larson of Telescope Media Group in their suit against the state of Minnesota. Specifically mentioned are Keith Ellison and Rebecca Lucero. A general overview of the case is similar to the Masterpiece Bakery case and stands on the same constitutional principle that no one can be compelled, particularly by the state, to participate in an event or compelled to speak favourably (or disfavourably) about a thing they find objectionable (or not). It is a core 1st amendment right. From the decision:

Carl and Angel Larsen wish to make wedding videos. Can Minnesota require them to produce videos of same-sex weddings, even if the message would conflict with their own beliefs? The district court concluded that it could and dismissed the Larsens’ constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s antidiscrimination law. Because the First Amendment allows the Larsens to choose when to speak and what to say, we reverse the dismissal of two of their claims and remand with instructions to consider whether they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. [My underlines]

In short, can a/the state pass a law that abridges the 1st Amendment rights of citizens? The short answer is (and should have been) no. Except in very extreme circumstances the state has no such power.

The Larsens “gladly work with all people—regardless of their race, sexual orientation, sex, religious beliefs, or any other classification.” But because they “are Christians who believe that God has called them to use their talents and their company to . . . honor God,” the Larsens decline any requests for their services that conflict with their religious beliefs. This includes any that, in their view, “contradict biblical truth; promote sexual immorality; support the destruction of unborn children; promote racism or racial division; incite violence; degrade women; or promote any conception of marriage other than as a lifelong institution between one man and one woman.”

This is identical to the situation that was in play with Masterpiece. It was not a rejection of the homosexual customer, it was a rejection of the particular service requested. I find it "interesting" that these homosexuals find their way to Christian establishments rather than say Whahabist Muslim ones. But that's not within the scope of this post.

So Minnesota tried to get at Telescope via it's "Human Rights Law":

It is an unfair discriminatory practice . . . to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of . . . sexual orientation.

Recall that Telescope said it would engage with homosexual customers within the parameters of their Christian business model So, had the couple 9(or individual) asked Telescope to video the wedding of one of their heterosexual friends, Telescope would have contracted with the homosexual customer because the request fell within the parameters of their business model. In other words, Telescope is partially in the business of making videos of heterosexual weddings, asking it to do otherwise is asking it do so something outside it's business parameters.

It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person engaged in a trade or business or in the provision of a service . . . to intentionally refuse to do business with, to refuse to contract with, or to discriminate in the basic terms, conditions, or performance of the contract because of a person’s . . . sexual orientation . . . , unless the alleged refusal or discrimination is because of a legitimate business purpose.

The "legitimate business purpose" is that it is beyond the scope of the business to do videos of homosexual weddings.

Minnesota takes it to another level though:

Minnesota reads these two provisions as requiring the Larsens to produce both opposite-sex- and same-sex-wedding videos, or none at all. According to Minnesota, the Larsens’ duty does not end there. If the Larsens enter the wedding- video business, their videos must depict same- and opposite-sex weddings in an equally “positive” light. Oral Argument at 26:08–27:15. If they do not, Minnesota has made clear that the Larsens will have unlawfully discriminated against prospective customers “because of” their sexual orientation. [my underlines]

Let me take out that underlined portion just so you see how far this rabbit hole goes:

their videos must depict same- and opposite-sex weddings in an equally “positive” light. Oral Argument at 26:08–27:15. If they do not, Minnesota has made clear that the Larsens will have unlawfully discriminated against prospective customers “because of” their sexual orientation.

You must approve.

Says the state.

For those of you who are too young to have witnessed the "progress" of this nonsense, I'll lay it out. It went like this:

1) Stop harassing us where we congregate.
2) Stop criminalizing what we do in private.
3) Stop denying us benefits of marriage
4) We need to be included in anti-discrimination laws
5) We need better representation in the media
6) You will approve of our marriages.
7) This man is a woman. This woman is a man.
8) We will indoctrinate your children.
9) If you resist we'll have the state deal with you. <-- we are here.

There is no "slippery slope fallacy". It's a logical fallacy *only* because it's premises cannot be proven. Hence the slippery slope is a predictive model. Anyway.

So we're at the point where a state has decided that it's citizens not only *have to* participate in events and speech they do not approve of, but if they don't engage in that speech or event in such a way that meets the approval of the state they can be sanctioned.

This passed multiple legislative sessions. Think about that.

In discussing the previous court ruling, the 8th said:

According to the court, the Larsens’ free-speech claim failed as a matter of law because the MHRA serves an important governmental interest— preventing discrimination—without limiting more speech than necessary to accomplish this goal. It also ruled that the MHRA did not violate any of the other constitutional rights identified by the Larsens.

The state interest in "preventing discrimination" involves "limiting speech as necessary to accomplish that goal." Can we say expansive? As we have seen the left expand the list of The Aggrieved and what words and deeds it considers "discriminatory", "white supremacist" and the like, why should the state be given such power?

The First Amendment, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I. It promotes the free exchange of ideas by allowing people to speak in many forms and convey a variety of messages, including those that “invite dispute” and are “provocative and challenging.” Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). It also prevents the government from “[c]ompelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable.” Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2463 (2018). As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[t]here is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive” approach because “the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas . . . by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.” Terminiello, 337 U.S. at 4–5. [my underlines]

So "provocative and challenging" speech is protected.

It also does not make any difference that the Larsens are expressing their views through a for-profit enterprise. See post at 48. In fact, in holding that motion pictures are protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the idea that films do not “fall within the First Amendment’s aegis [simply] because” they are often produced by “large-scale business[es] conducted for private profit.” Joseph Burstyn, 343 U.S. at 501; see also Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S. Ct. at 1745 (Thomas, J., concurring) (“[T]his Court has repeatedly rejected the notion that a speaker’s profit motive gives the government a freer hand in compelling speech.”). Other commercial and corporate entities, including utility companies and newspapers, have received First Amendment protection too. See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion) (collecting cases); Tornillo, 418 U.S. at 258; see also Citizens United v. FEC, 558

That said "provocative and challenging" speech is done for profit does not strip 1st amendment protection.

Minnesota’s interpretation of the MHRA interferes with the Larsens’ speech in two overlapping ways. First, it compels the Larsens to speak favorably about same-sex marriage if they choose to speak favorably about opposite-sex marriage. Second, it operates as a content-based regulation of their speech.

This is the most obvious thing. As pointed out above, it represents a great overstep of power by the state and should not be taken lightly. The second part is of interest:

The State asserts an interest in ensuring “that all people in Minnesota [are] entitled to full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations and services.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This interest has a substantial constitutional pedigree and, generally speaking, we have no doubt that it is compelling....

But that is not the point. Even antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution...

As the Supreme Court has explained, even if the government may prohibit “the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services,” it may not “declar[e] [another’s] speech itself to be [a] public accommodation” or grant “protected individuals . . . the right to participate in [another’s] speech.” Id. at 572–73 (emphasis added).

Later:

As these cases demonstrate, regulating speech because it is discriminatory or offensive is not a compelling state interest, however hurtful the speech may be. It is a “bedrock principle . . . that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989); see also Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S. Ct. at 1731 (“[I]t is not . . . the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive.”). After all, the Westboro Baptist Church could carry highly inflammatory signs at military funerals, see Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 448– 49, 460–61 (2011), the Nazis could march in areas heavily populated by Jewish residents, see Nat’l Socialist Party of Am. v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 43–44 (1977) (per curiam), and an activist could burn the American flag as a form of political protest, see Johnson, 491 U.S. at 399.

Judge Kelly's dissent should be of interest to the reader. As dissents go it is pretty strong. I disagree with it, but I think it is strong and it points to the fundamental problem: th 1964 Civil Rights act and its creation of "protected classes". When that law was passed the primary concern was "Negroes". Black people were generally barred outright from certain businesses or afforded limited accommodation. I don't think anyone at the time even thought that protected classes would be made of persons who's behavior was not only agreed to be immoral by those persons who the law sought to protect but that the behavior of these new protected classes was illegal country wide at the time. I'm pretty certain that had someone gone back in a time machine and said that homosexuals would be covered under the act being considered, they would have probably added language that expressly limited the ability to expand the classes or would have scrapped the entire thing.

That said, once homosexuals became a protected class, it put the state on a direct collision course with the 1st amendment and the idea of freedom of (and from) association. One of the items of interest in Kelly's dissent is the following:

Likewise, regardless of who asks TMG to create the wedding video, if the Larsens refuse to provide the service because of the sexual orientation of the video’s subjects, that is discrimination “because of” sexual orientation.

This goes to my earlier argument in regards to a heterosexual person asking for a video for their homosexual friends. The heterosexual couple are the customers but under the Minn. law it would still be discriminatory to the non-customer subject.

Ultimately Kelly believes that the state should and can override a citizen's conscience because the state disagrees with it:

I recognize that the complaint alleges that the reason for the Larsens’ differential treatment of same-sex couples is not because of prejudice against homosexuals, but because they disagree with the message that a video of a same-sex marriage would convey. But that does not make their intended conduct nondiscriminatory under the law. They want TMG to offer different services to customers based on sexual orientation, running afoul of the MHRA. Whatever the Larsens’ motivations, the premise of this lawsuit is that TMG would violate the MHRA if it engages in the conduct described in the complaint.

Kelly even brought up separate but equal:

Thus, TMG cannot avoid violating the MHRA by providing other types of non-wedding services to gay and lesbian clients, nor can it provide services to same-sex couples that are inferior to those that it provides to heterosexual couples. Courts have long rejected the notion that the provision of “separate but equal” services is anything but discrimination by another name. Brown v. Bd. of Ed., 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954); see also Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 296–99 (1964) (concluding that a restaurant that provided “a take-out service for Negroes” but “refused to serve Negroes in its dining accommodations” violated Title II’s public accommodations provision).

I don't think this argument stands. Even the example given is not analogous. "Negroes" made to go to the pick up window" are being denied entrance to the establishment. No such thing is present in this case. Secondly there is no "separate" service whatsoever in discussion here. There is no service where the subject is a homosexual wedding. A better "Negro" example would be a venue that refuses to sell the Negro a particular product in it's store that it sells to non-Negroes.

What Kelly and the state of Minn. is saying is that you will do business in the way that Minn. decides (with the very real chance that some new protected class will show up) or you do no business whatsoever. It is the very definition of compelled speech. Do this or do not work...and die.

The Jokes Write Themselves

Chicken boxes featuring warnings about the dangers of carrying a knife have been sent to takeaways in England and Wales as part of a government campaign. More than 321,000 boxes will replace standard packaging at outlets including Chicken Cottage, Dixy Chicken and Morley's, the Home Office said.

Really......

I laughed so hard when I saw this. I mean. They couldn't just come out and say that the knifing crime in England is actually black crime, so they use the chicken as a proxy. I mean this is the level of "How many lights do you see?" rabbit hole that the left has sunk England into.

Dal Babu, a former chief superintendent with the Metropolitan Police, said: "This initiative seeks to target chicken shops because the assumption is that's where young black people go. "There's a racial element to it - it stereotypes people, it's patronising and I can understand why people see it as racist."

"I can understand why people see it as racist." Yes I'm sure, but more importantly....Is it TRUE?

Courtney Barrett, who runs his own knife amnesty in east London told BBC News the scheme was a "step in the right direction" but stressed that it should not just involve chicken shops.

Say....patty shoppes. Barber shoppes.

Recent figures showed most perpetrators of knife crime were over the age of 18.

And they eat lots of chicken.

But seriously, in the original "recent figures" linked to this page: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089 Where apparently nobody...I mean NO BODY thought of making a chart of race of perps,victims and population percent. No. NO. Don't want to do that.

Philly Shooting As An Example Of Why Gun Laws Don't Work

So yesterday a felon with a gun shot 6 philly cops.

Not soon after, we had politicians calling for more or "better" gun laws.

Really.

Let's get this out the way: Felons are prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms. Therefore there was no way that this person came into possession of a firearm by legal means.

So apparently it is news to some people that people will get things via not legal means.

Gun laws do one thing and one thing only: prevent the [currently} law-abiding to obtain and carry firearms.

The second important thing of note here is that 6 police officers were shot. They were armed. Being armed is no guarantee that you will not be harmed in an altercation. Hence, it is irresponsible and wrong to make statements that simply by having a gun, the "good guy" will prevail. No. It doesn't work like that.

But also of importance is that at least the police officers had the option of being armed to protect themselves. Politicians do not want us civilians to have the same opportunity. That is unacceptable to me. Why should I as a civilian be less able to defend myself from imminent danger, while a state agent is given that ability? Why do I have to "wait and hope"?

The Departed

If you believe that Mr. Epstein simply "committed suicide" then there is a bridge to Brooklyn that I'll take offers on. He tried it once. My speculation was that he was "given the opportunity" to do himself the first time but he couldn't do it hence being "found in the fetal position with marks".

Those "interested parties" then took more "firm" actions. The camera was allegedly "down for service". The guards were called off.

There is a scene in The Departed where one of the crooks is met by Matt Damon in the interrogation room. He's told to "call mother". The viewer is supposed to be like "damn, he did that right under the nose of the camera and other people watching."

You right.

Anyone can get got. The names that were going to get dropped into the public domain were not going to go quietly and honestly I don't think it's just Clinton.

To quote another movie:

"The first thing you should know about us is that we have people everywhere..."

Joe's "Gaffe"

So Joe Biden said that poor people are just as good as white people. The MSM has been saying that the statement was [another] Biden gaffe. It wasn't. It reflects what is essentially the party line of Democrats: If you are not a "Straight White Male" then you are a victim of said Strait White Male. In addition, it is another confirmation of a recent study that showed that liberals were more likely than conservatives to talk down to black people.

People dumb down their speech to people they consider less informed or less intelligent than they are. So Joe was simply stating what it is the Democrats believe. Elizabeth Warren stated an outright lie when she said that Mike Brown was murdered in Ferguson. Never mind that no such finding was arrived at by investigators. Never mind that Witness 101, who reluctantly testified because he was afraid for his and his mother's safety, provided testimony that backed Wilson.

For Democrats, everything bad that happens to black people is the fault of some white man somewhere.That black people are agency less, children who are being blown around by the vicious winds of "white supremacy". Black people locked up? Must be because of some white man rather than the dead body. Black kids not performing in school? It's because of some white man somewhere (other than in the seat next to them providing good grades by osmosis).

I said it before and I'll say it again. When Democrats see black people, they think "slave". Add "poor" and "stupid" to that list.

Due Process of Law

What is "due process"? Forgive me if I've arrived late to the party but it recently dawned on me that "due process" doesn't mean anything. Due process means whatever the authorities says it means. Today "due process" can mean a court proceeding. Tomorrow "due process" can mean police knocking on your door and taking you or your stuff.

In the wake of the shootings, there is a lot more talk about "red flag" laws where just about anyone can call "the authorities" and say that you are behaving (or speaking) in a manner that "concerns" them. Then the police can come to your place of residence and demand you surrender your firearm or else be killed by the same authorities. You may be thinking that the last part is not in the law. No, but any law is ultimately enforceable by the use of deadly force. Ask Eric Garner.

Another example. Statutory rape. There is no defense to statutory rape. If a person has sex with a minor regardless of circumstances, they are guilty of statutory rape. What circumstances could there be that works in the favor of the defendant? Not knowing the age of the person. A few years ago an ex-football player was caught in just such a situation. He paid for a prostitute. Whether you agree with prostitution or not is not the subject here. The person who came to his hotel room was underage. He did not know that. He assumed (wrongly) that the woman who presented herself to him was of age. She did not tell him she was underage. After the event, the ex-football player was arrested and charged with statutory rape. Apparently, the girl's pimp misrepresented the girl to the ex-footballer.

Would the ex-footballer have knowingly engaged in sex with a minor? It's possible. It certainly does happen. And certainly, a person who does so would have an incentive to lie and say they didn't know. But I still find it objectionable that a person can be found guilty of a crime in the absence of criminal intent. And for those who say that he should have known because she "looked" young, I say, come out from under the rock you live under. Many young, legal women do not look their age. There are 18-year-olds who do not look it. Not my personal taste, but they are out there and it's not my job, or the state's to dictate what those women should do, or with whom.

So back to the "due process" discussion. Since Trump has been elected to office, various left-leaning "judges" have made decisions that are unsupported by the letter of the law that they are supposed to be upholding whether they like it or not. Many of these judges have gone so far as to overextend the scope of their decisions far beyond their jurisdictions. In short, these judges have created new "due processes" out of thin air. If the government and/or its agents can decide what "due process" is based on how they felt on that particular day, then there is nothing safe from the state. Either the state is restrained by law or it isn't.

Another way "due process" becomes an "illusions" is by creeping criminalization. The entire concept of "hate speech" runs against the 1st amendment. Yet we have the department of homeland security calling the owner of a private business in for questioning because the El Paso shooter allegedly posted his manifesto to a site hosted by or that does business with Cloudflare.

How did this even get past the agency lawyers? Whether the shooter's manifesto was posted to the site or not, it is still protected speech. The government has absolutely no business in calling in citizens to question them about their or other's speech.

So perhaps I'm late to the party but it seems that the idea of "due process" isn't really what we think it is. After all, if courts can rule that "shall not be infringed" or "shall not be abridged" means they can infringe and abridge, then there really is no "due process" worth believing in.

The Growing Threat of "White Supremacy"

White Supremacy is indeed growing and a threat to America. This is beyond doubt. If anything has shown us that this is the case, it is the recent shootings. Indeed we must do what we can to deal with this growing problem of "White Supremacy". What exactly is the threat of "White Supremacy"? Well, it is its use by certain groups to dismiss and censor legitimate political, religious and other differences among people. The term "white supremacy" used to mean specifically people who think that white people are [to be] supreme over any and everyone else. What we find today is that it is used to describe all manner of things that are not white supremacy whatsoever. Let us examine:

1) Restricting immigration. Apparently wishing to restrict immigration is white supremacy. Not only in America, arguably a country that was founded by an immigrant (as in came from elsewhere) population, but also to the native lands of Europeans. Sticking with America, there was a time when almost all immigration was stopped. The reasoning being that there was such a high population of [European] immigrants in America, that the country risked being fractionalized as these growing populations held onto the habits and thinking of their mother countries. Hence to "Americanize" these populations, they were cut off from new supplies and forced to become Americans. Current America is in a similar situation. Large areas of the country are very much not America. English is a subordinate language and indeed in some places, completely unnecessary to conduct business, be it private or government.

But even if one disagreed with restricting legal immigration. The idea that one is a "white supremacist" if one opposes trespassing, which is what illegal entry is a total misuse of the term. Nobody likes or agrees with trespassing. This is why we lock our doors. This is why we reserve the right to say who can enter (and stay) in our places of living. Illegal entry is illegal entry. Prettying it up with "undocumented this" and "asylum" the other is just that. Prettying up an act that simply would not be tolerated if it happened on your private property. So again, if opposing illegal entry into the US is "white supremacy" then Barbara Jordan is a white supremacist.

Another reason to restrict immigration is the impact on jobs. Any person with an above room temperature IQ should know that if you increase the pool of labour, you depress the prevailing wages for that labour. Illegal immigration AND legal immigration depresses wages for the entire market.

Lastly, immigration, particularly from "developing nations" strips them of intellectual capital that could be used to build that nation. The US literally strips doctors from countries that now depend on organizations such as "doctors without borders" to do basic medical treatment. How do people who are so concerned with "White supremacy" square their immigration stands with the strip mining of "POC" intellectuals? 2) Opposition to handing out public benefits to illegal aliens. This is what we call "theft of services". To claim that it is "white supremacist". Nonsense. Citizens and legal alien residents pay taxes (property etc.) to not only fund current services as well as future services. Future services are based on extrapolations of what the populations will be. If millions more people are in the area that were not budgeted for, then services are strained. Citizens should not be subject to such things. This is not "white supremacy" this is respect for the taxpayer. 3) Opposition to illegal alien crime. This is another thing that is called "white supremacist". Certain parties will claim that crime among illegal aliens is lower than that of citizens. First of all that is not entirely true. The rate of crime in America is racially stratified with African-Americans committing far more than their demographics would predict if all things were equal. If AA crime were eliminated in total, American crime rates would be at or below European levels.

But even if it was not. No citizen or legal resident alien should be threatened by any person who should not be here. Every person killed or otherwise harmed by an illegal alien is a preventable event. Whether it be 1 or 1 million. None of it should occur. It is the job of government to keep its citizens safe (within reason), particularly from foreign nationals. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. 4) Opposition to the Tranny BS. This is considered "white supremacy" because it re-enforces "The patriarchy" and "binary definitions" which are supposed hallmarks of "white supremacy". We are told that we should allow children to "transition" to whatever they think they are because....because. We are supposed to be OK with children being put on display at gay bars and so-called "pride" events. We have moved from "the government should leave consenting adults to do whatever it is they want to do in the privacy of their own homes" to "the government should punish whoever objects to what I do in private AND in public and does not recognize that I think I'm a [choose] today."

John Derbyshire mentioned the Chinese proverb of the emperor who presented his court with a deer and said it was a horse. It is an apt story which I'm probably butchering but go along with me. In the story, this emperor wanted to know which of his courtiers would go along with him. So when he presented the deer as a horse, his various courtiers either said the horse was in fact a deer (in other words were committed to telling the truth). Others remained silent. Some said that the deer was a horse (whatever the emperor said is good enough for me!). The emperor had all the people who correctly identified the deer killed.

This is where we are. Those who dare speak the absolute truth or at least give reasonable arguments are being set upon by people drunk with ever-accumulating power. The "white supremacy" smear is just one of the tools. 5) Upholding freedom of speech. This too is now "white supremacy". The very concept that got African-Americans out of slavery, out from under Jim Crow, etc. is now scorned by the very people that benefited from it. Since "speech" can be used to "harm" those whom it may be directed or about, it should be policed and punished. Never mind that there is no "harm". What actually exists are people who think they are 'entitled" to be liked and accepted by everyone. There is no such right. If I don't care for Joe or Joe's behavior then I don't care for Joe or Joe's behavior. Joe cannot force me to like Joe or Joe's behavior and the state has no right to punish me for not liking Joe or Joe's behavior or for stating that I don't like Joe, Joe's behavior or anyone who engages in the same behavior as Joe. And Joe has to deal with it.

By attacking freedom of speech as "white supremacist", those engaging in the smear are essentially asserting their power over the population. Because the attack on speech is not an attack on speech. It is the legitimizing and delegitimizing ideas. Not only can YOU not speak but you also cannot "LISTEN" to counter arguments because those arguments have been deemed "beyond the pale". This is the essence of the ubiquitous "white supremacy" squeals from various persons. They are telling you what to think...or else.

So yes we have a "white supremacy" problem. How about we address it.

New Shooters, Old Issues

I'm going to do my little bit to dispell media dis-information in regards to the two recent shootings in the US.

1) The El-Paso shooting was instigated by Trump's...well Trump.

False.

If you read the manifesto you'll see that he specifically mentioned Trump. He said that his particular view of the "invasion" of Texas (and America) predated Trump. In fact he had pointed words for both parties on that subject. So if the shooter is to be believed then all commentary that Trump's words were the reason for this guy's criminal act is dis-information.

2) The Dayton Shooter was Antifa.

True

These two issues are an indication of how much blood the media has on its hands. One the one hand it has "delegitimized" and suppressed discussion of absolutely valid issues and concerns of broad swaths of the citizenry by labeling them "white nationalists". It has legitimized absolutely ridiculous claims such as concentration camps. It has, depending on the political winds claimed there was no border crisis or that there is a border crisis. It has openly endorsed a group of people who wear masks in public who assault people it claims are "Nazis". Due to these two phenomenons: The delegitimization of valid issues of one group and the amplification of fake assertions of another has, in my opinion, fed the recent shootings.

After all, if we're going to say Trump's rhetoric caused El-Paso, then since the Dayton shooter followed Warren, should she be held accountable?

What about the guy who shot Rep. Scalise? He was a Bernie supporter. Should Sanders be held responsible for him?

Why haven't the so-called journalists asked this question of each candidate who has made the claim that Trump is responsible? Because we are living in a time of dis-information. Let's see how many times we hear about the Antifa connection of the Dayton shooter.

3) Guns are the problem.

False.

As I've said many many times. Guns are inanimate objects. If you sit one down and nobody touches it, nobody gets shot. People shoot people. Not guns. There is no such thing as "gun violence" or "gun crime". There are people who shoot and/or kill people with guns. It is also the case that guns have been a part of American life for its entire existence, yet mass shootings of the type we are seeing is a very recent phenomenon. I've already shown that young people used to learn how to handle gun at school.

What we have is a cultural problem. It is highly likely that the cultural problem is being fed by the increased media dis-information that may be pushing mentally unstable people over lines they would not have crossed. This is pure speculation on my part. A lot of people talk about how Europe has less "gun crime". Europe also, until very recently, also has a very different culture, informed largely by a homogeneous demographic.

4) White Men are the biggest danger:

Patently false.

The FBI defines a mass shooting as one where 3 or more people have been shot in a single event. The "news" media puts white shooters front and center often for political purposes. However; when it comes to shootings period, non-whites, specifically black males, far outrank anyone else in America for shootings. This includes public places. See GunViolence.org. Ask yourself a question: If there have been so many mass shootings in America this year alone, how come you've only heard of 5?

The answer is, that most of them don't make it past the local news. Most of them do not fit the national dis-information narrative. This is not to minimize the events of this weekend. This is to not deal in dis-information.

5) No conceal carry present in Texas? Lastly, one of the things I was surprised by was that no one in the area was a concealed or open carry. Texas is a "shall issue" state. That means that anyone who is of age and is not a felon can purchase a firearm and receive a permit/license. Furthermore; it is legal in Texas to openly carry a firearm so long as it is holstered. I'm not entirely clear as to the policy Walmart has in regards to carrying in their stores.

The reason I bring this up is that the first interview I heard was of a woman who saw the shooter in the parking lot. I don't know how many people were in the parking lot but she indicated at least one other person was there. Had she or the other person been carrying it is likely that the incident would have been ended there. Criminals tend to pick places and people where they are unlikely to meet resistance. It is often said in self-defense circles that no one can help you except you. No disrespect for the police, but many people were killed in both incidences because there was no one in the immediate environment who could resist the shooter with deadly force. Armed citizens do not in any way, shape or form guarantee that no one will be shot and killed. However, the presence of armed (and trained) citizens can absolutely drop the potential body count because shooters often end their crimes once resistance is met. If you think I'm lying here's video evidence:

And because I'm honest, the other side:

Perhaps a CC was present but decided it was best to not intervene.

So closing this out I just want to say that these are dangerous times, relatively speaking. What is making this dangerous is the censoring of legitimate issues by state and corporate actors. The reason we have free speech is in part because those who feel they can communicate will often NOT resort to violence. The most dangerous people are those who believe they have nothing to lose (and now media fame to gain). The second reason we have free speech is that we cannot be absolutely sure of the rightness or correctness of our beliefs. Therefore; the ability of those to challenge our beliefs via their speech, is how we become better thinkers ourselves. Name-calling and ad-hominem attacks are not arguments. Resorting to them doesn't prove your case. Living in echo chambers does nothing for critical thinking because echo chambers by definition have no critiques to offer.

Beware the dis-information.