Dear leftists: If you don’t like having the FCC, I’m all in. Let’s abolish the FCC. Right now. Forever. NO REGULATION of media whatsoever. But no regulation means no regulation. It doesn’t mean you get to censor and intimidate like you openly did during the Biden and Obama regimes. It doesn’t mean conservatives get regulated and censored while “progressives” get to say (and do) whatever the hell they wish. It means across the board — no regulation. Are you ready for that? Or are you only angry and a principled libertarian when the existence of an FCC appears to harm your Communist-fascist-terrorist-totalitarian buddies?

In red states like South Carolina, Texas and Florida, “educators” have been fired for celebrating Charlie Kirk’s brutal murder and, in the process, further reinforcing their views that anyone who doesn’t agree with their militant Communism, fascism and woke (i.e., psychotic) ideas about the need for state-sanctioned hormonal alteration of children is a racist, Nazi and savage. In other words, they get to be paid money by the government to brainwash and intimidate young people into adopting the stupidest and most toxic ideas and attitudes ever to present themselves in a classroom going back to ancient Greece. Adding insult to injury, these toxic “teachers” get to call reasonable people all the things that they, the teachers and professors themselves, actually ARE: bigots and tyrants.

In red states, a few of them are being held accountable–for now. In blue states they’re having a field day. We need to 100 percent federally DEFUND all schools and universities immediately. Let Soros, Oprah and the Obamas pay them to spew poison. This has got to stop.

As for President Trump going after political enemies like Obama? We should be so lucky. Obama should literally hang for treason, but we know he never will. We’ll be hearing his Marxist-fascist lecturing 30 years from now, maybe beyond.

Obama complains about “cancel culture” in the firing of Jimmy Kimmel by far-left Disney/ABC.

It’s like Stalin complaining about starvation. Or Hitler complaining about the poisonous gas showers.
The audacity of projection.

Obama also brags that when he was President, he didn’t respond to a tragedy by going after political enemies.

Good grief. There are no words for this stunning evasion of truth, this openly orchestrated inversion of sensory-level facts. People applauding this? Even one? THIS is how you get Nazi Germany.

I am sometimes shocked almost speechless by the inconceivable hubris, the profound dishonesty and utterly brazen lack of awareness exhibited by these freaks. How can even minimally decent and intelligent people fall for any of it?

Jimmy Kimmel, in one respect, has nothing to worry about. He will simply run for President. All Democrats want to be President. They think–correction: they FEEL–it will give them the elusive visibility and metaphysical significance that, on some level, they know they do not possess. He can fantasize he will get his revenge by being President, by becoming the Stalinesque dictator he imagines Donald Trump to be. However, one problem for Jimmy : All the other grotesque leftist celebrities like himself will also be running for President in 2028. And it will not matter; Party officials, not voters, will be picking their nominee anyway.

Michael J Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

BREAKING: Timothy Cardinal Dolan on fallen hero Charlie Kirk: “The more I learned about him, I thought this guy is a modern-day Saint Paul. He was a missionary, an evangelist, a hero.” Charlie should be made a SAINT!

On May 28, 2021, I ran for my life through the streets of downtown Portland, Ore.

Antifa had discovered me working undercover after one of their members, John Hacker, exposed me to the mob.

I screamed for help as I fled, but drivers and pedestrians looked away. The businesses were all shuttered, remnants of the ongoing destruction from the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots. There was nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

They caught me. Antifa tackled me to the ground, tearing my knee tendon in the process as I slid across the pavement. They punched me over and over and tried to choke me out. I barely managed to stumble into @theNinesHotel, begging the staff to call 911. Instead, they tried to force me back outside and told me to wear a Covid mask. I dropped to the floor, refusing to move, pleading for them to call the police. They refused.

Outside, Antifa gathered. One of their ringleaders, Elizabeth Richter — the blonde woman — began rallying the crowd. She called on others on a livestream to come finish me off. She went inside the hotel and threatened me. Antifa also tried breaking their way into the hotel.

I escaped only by jumping into an elevator with a hotel guest. After that, I was taken by ambulance to the hospital with a police guard. I was soaked in my blood. On social media, Antifa immediately began trying to track which hospital I was in, hoping to finish the job.

As soon as I was discharged, I had to flee Portland. I moved between safe houses in different states. Antifa’s hunt for me was far from over.

@PortlandPolice closed the case a few weeks afterward, saying they couldn’t identify anyone. Nobody was ever arrested, just like in 2019 when I was beaten to the point that my brain bled.

Andy Ngo, X

On Monday, Jimmy Kimmel used his monologue to accuse MAGA of “trying to cover up the fact that the person who killed Charlie Kirk was one of them.” This was after Utah Attorney General Derek Brown had disclosed evidence that the shooter had admitted that he hated Kirk for his anti-trans views, had a trans lover, and had been planning the assassination for a week.

Andrew Alford, President of Broadcasting for Nexstar, an affilate of ABC, called Kimmel’s comments “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located.”

Sinclair, another ABC affiliate vice chairman Jason Smith said “Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were inappropriate and deeply insensitive at a critical moment for our country. We believe broadcasters have a responsibility to educate and elevate respectful, constructive dialogue in our communities.” Both affiliates refused to broadcast Kimmel’s show. ABC then announced it was suspending the show.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va) called the suspension “a betrayal of what Charlie Kirk stood for. I never met Charlie Kirk and I didn’t know him, but everybody says he was a free speech guy — including speech that you may not like. So this is what we’re going to do? I’m very pissed off.”

Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt) called the suspension “the biggest attack on First Amendment rights that we’ve seen since the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. This is censorship.” When Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla) reminded Welch that “President Biden sent the FBI out to intimidate social media companies into suppressing dissent over his covid policies and the truth about Hunter Biden’s laptop,” Welch insisted “folks have no right to say things that could endanger public health or national security.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blamed Trump, saying “I am just outraged by it! This is just despicable and disgusting, and against Democratic values. This is what dictators do. It proves that Trump is the Nazi we said he was. I hope voters realize this before they ever cast a ballot for a Republican again.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr observed that “there are only a limited number of over-the-air broadcasting licenses that can be accommodated without the signals interfering with each other. The expectation is that the holders of these licenses will serve the broader community and offer a more balanced coverage of controversial topics. Yet, it seems that the coverage is extraordinarily lopsided in favor of the extreme left wing of politics.”

Stephen Colbert, host of “The Late Show,” pointed out that “both Jimmy and I have faithfully represented the perspective of this tiny minority of the political spectrum. Yet, now it looks the 1% to 2% of the viewing audience we attracted are going to be denied their fair share of the airwaves. This is how our democracy is being destroyed.”

In related news, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) just released documents entailing a probe of 92 Republican groups ordered by President Biden in 2022. Grassley said, “this probe improperly used taxpayer funds to turn FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors into weapons that were used to achieve partisan objectives.”

Sen. Schumer dismissed Grassley’s complaint, saying, “as President Obama so wisely reminded us, ‘elections have consequences.’ Biden won the 2020 election and consequently was entitled to rule the nation as he saw fit.”

John Semmens

In 2012, I read an article on Breitbart.com that called out liberal bias in the teaching of economics. The author pointed to “distortions” in a high school textbook co-authored by Paul Krugman that dismissed the thinking of supply-side economists. It denied that the tax reduction they helped bring about during the Reagan administration had any effect on economic growth—despite government data showing exactly the opposite: a dramatic surge in job creation and a marked decline in unemployment.

The author declared, “If a student were to submit an essay with such disregard for basic evidence, it would ensure a failing grade.” He concluded, “Students are being pushed towards an education that demonizes free enterprise while advocating top-down government, deficit spending and class warfare.”

The piece featured references to iconic supply siders Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer, among other respected sources. Its authoritative critique was worthy of a seasoned policy analyst. Yet the author was an unknown named Charlie Kirk, then just a senior in high school.

I reached out to congratulate Charlie and sent him How Capitalism Will Save Us, the book I had recently co-authored with Steve Forbes that was aimed at a wide audience including younger readers. The correspondence eventually led to meetings in New York with Charlie and Bill Montgomery, the retired publisher and restauranteur who was Charlie’s early mentor and backer. At one point, I introduced them to Steve Forbes, who provided encouragement over a steakhouse lunch.

It was clear immediately that Charlie was no ordinary 18-year-old. The writer of the Breitbart article had a maturity beyond his years. He was passionate, eloquent and, at 6 foot 5, a compelling physical presence.

Charlie had co-founded a group—then called SOS Liberty—to counter the anti-capitalism student protests of the Occupy Wall Street movement. I thought the story of his band of young activists had media potential. So I asked if he had a press release to send to places like Fox News. His somewhat sheepish reply caught me by surprise. “What’s a press release?” It took a second to remember he was just 18 years old.

SOS Liberty was eventually renamed Turning Point USA. After a brief stint on its board of advisors, we eventually lost touch. Since then, I have watched awestruck as Charlie evolved from a young spokesman for free market principles into a magnetic evangelist for traditional values to—tragically last week—a history-making leader cut down in his prime.

Media accounts describing Charlie Kirk as an “influencer” are overly simplistic. He realized that a society based on economic freedom cannot function unless its citizens value hard work, personal discipline, family and civil debate. He knew that bringing about this cultural change required not only a message but a movement.

Charlie was an organizational genius on a par with some of America’s most successful entrepreneurs. The college dropout built Turning Point USA into a multimedia content and event producer that reportedly generates $100 million in annual revenue.

Like the president he supported, he also understood that, to attract attention to your message in a cluttered media universe, you had to stage a performance. As he did in his campus

debates, books and podcasts, you had to challenge people to think. Yes, he was provocative and occasionally overstepped. But there is no challenging his success at bringing viewpoint diversity to college campuses suffocated by years of indoctrination and partisanship.

Over the years I have often recalled something that Bill Montgomery—who sadly passed away from COVID in 2020—said to me that day at lunch. “He’s got it.” This wunderkind was going to go places. The forecast was more prescient than either of us knew.

Elizabeth Ames is an author and producer.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was already positively impacting the world with his indefatigable, peaceful, joyful, godly work to change hearts and minds, but in mere days, his assassination by a cowardly sniper’s bullet has already launched a tsunami of change he likely could not have imagined. The world is entering a different epoch now, and as with all shifts into a new age, there will be birthing pains.

I can’t recall whose insight this was, but someone online observed that Charlie’s murder was an “Archduke Ferdinand moment” – referring to the assassination that triggered World War I. I think that captures the sobering magnitude of Charlie’s martyrdom (yes, literal martyrdom; as others have pointed out, Charlie was killed not for his politics but for his Christian faith, which shaped his political positions). But his brutal murder drives home the point that we are already in a hot civil war in this country – not just a culture war, not a figurative civil war, but a hot civil war.

But so far only one side has been waging that war. From the assassination of healthcare CEO Brian Thompson at the hands of a terrorist-turned-Left-wing-folk-hero, to the slaughter of Catholic schoolchildren at the hands of a demonic trans terrorist, to Charlie Kirk at the hands (allegedly) of a Left-radicalized young man (with a trans partner) who declared that “some hate can’t be negotiated out,” the Left has already declared war on the political opponents they deem to be fascist threats to democracy who must be exterminated like vermin (hence their dehumanizing rhetoric over the years since the reign of Barack Obama, intensified under Joe Biden).

I am old enough to remember another time when the Left normalized political violence in America. As Bryan Burroughs notes in his book Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence, “radical violence was so deeply woven into the fabric of 1970s America that many citizens, especially in New York and other hard-hit cities, accepted it as part of daily life.” Burroughs quotes a retired FBI agent who noted, “People have completely forgotten but in 1972 we had over nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States. It was every day. Buildings getting bombed, policemen getting killed. It was commonplace.”

My record at predictions is mixed at best, so I hope I’m wrong about this one, but I believe we are about to enter a new Days of Rage. Political violence is about to become even more “commonplace.” The Left’s repugnant response to Charlie’s murder has already demonstrated that they are not going to be shocked into policing themselves and de-escalating the violence, much less their demonizing, vicious rhetoric. Some Democrat leaders, like Barack Obama, have issued obligatory, tepid statements denouncing political violence, but do not expect that any “moderate” elements on the Left will prevail. The Democrat Party is controlled by the radical Left, and has been since well before the calculated, meteoric rise of Barack Obama.

And the Right is going to have to be prepared to confront that and take the necessary steps to shut it down. I interacted personally with Charlie only a couple of times and didn’t know him that well, but I do know he would not be calling for violent retribution over his killing. And I’m not calling for it either. Nevertheless, those of us on the Right are going to have to come together and get on the same page regarding a just and appropriate response to a political movement that gleefully embraces assassination as a tactic.

We didn’t want this civil war, and we didn’t start it, but we need to be determined to end it. We can and should have many open conversations about what that might entail, but ending it has to be our end game. Our nation cannot sustain itself as things currently stand politically and culturally.

What about finding common ground and calling for unity, you ask? In an address after Kirk’s murder, Vice President JD Vance forcefully delivered a dose of hard reality about the possibility of reconciliation between Left and Right:

“There is no unity with people who scream at children over their parents’ politics. There is no unity with someone who lies about what Charlie Kirk said in order to excuse his murder. There is no unity with someone who harasses an innocent family the day after the father of that family lost a dear friend. There is no unity with the people who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s assassination. There is no unity for the people that fund these articles who pay the salaries of these terrorist sympathizers who argue that Charlie Kirk, a loving husband and father, deserved a shot to the neck because he spoke words with which they disagreed.”

Vance went on to note that unity is only possible “with people who acknowledge that political violence is unacceptable.” True, but this is essentially saying that unity is impossible, because the Left by and large believes not only that such violence is acceptable, but that it is a necessary tactic to dismantle what they see as the fascistic, systemically white supremacist, Trump regime. Indeed, they believe violence, when they wage it, is a form of speech, while speech, when the Right exercises it, as Charlie Kirk did, is violence – against their designated, “oppressed” victim categories.

I have written and spoken about this often in recent years: bridging the gaping political chasm in America is not possible because there are two distinct Americas today, each side passionately supporting starkly opposed and irreconcilable worldviews.

One side acknowledges that America is imperfect but still takes pride in our exceptionalism; the other side believes America is the villain of history and must be fundamentally remade from the foundations up.

And the Right is going to have to be prepared to confront that and take the necessary steps to shut it down. I interacted personally with Charlie only a couple of times and didn’t know him that well, but I do know he would not be calling for violent retribution over his killing. And I’m not calling for it either. Nevertheless, those of us on the Right are going to have to come together and get on the same page regarding a just and appropriate response to a political movement that gleefully embraces assassination as a tactic.

We didn’t want this civil war, and we didn’t start it, but we need to be determined to end it. We can and should have many open conversations about what that might entail, but ending it has to be our end game. Our nation cannot sustain itself as things currently stand politically and culturally.

One side wants secure borders, legal immigration, and America First; the other wants open borders, amnesty for millions of illegals, and submission to globalist institutions.

One side holds to the principles of the Constitution and our God-given rights such as freedom of speech; the other believes the Constitution is outdated and unwoke, that God is dead anyway, and that free speech only empowers fascists.

One side believes in the sanctity of unborn lives; the other considers the unborn a mere clump of cells that can be discarded when inconvenient.

One side believes fairness means equality of opportunity; the other believes the remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination.

One side believes nothing justifies rioting and looting; the other defends rioting and looting as reparations for slavery, and considers the terms “rioting” and “looting” themselves to be racist dog-whistles.

One side believes the news media should strive for objectivity; the other believes objectivity is a racist Western concept and that journalists should openly embrace social justice activism.

One side believes, like Charlie Kirk did, in reasoned debate; the other believes that words are violence, that there are no universal truths, and that reason itself is an oppressive tool of white privilege.

One side believes political violence is a sign of Third-World lawlessness; the other believes pre-emptive violence against political opponents is self-defense and anti-fascist.

I could go on, but the obvious point is that on literally every issue facing America today, there is a Grand Canyon-sized gulf between Left and Right perspectives. There is no way to bring these two Americas together, not even in a contentious coexistence. Matter cannot exist in the same space as anti-matter. To borrow from the tagline of the 1986 movie Highlander, “there can be only one.” For the country to survive, one of these worldviews must resoundingly defeat the other in the marketplace of ideas, in the halls of power, and if necessary, in the streets.

We are way past the point where the Left will heed pleas for unity and civility; their lust for total power has vaulted them beyond law and order, beyond morality itself when it comes to crushing political opposition.

For the two Americas to find any common ground to work toward unity, they must share at least a few essential points of agreement like a love for country, a respect for law and order, and a shared sense of American identity, among others. But as long as the country is stretched to the breaking point between such ideological, existential, and moral opposites, the two repelling poles cannot come together. There can be only one.

Mark Tapson

Unlike Amazon, which is dominated by Chinese third party seller spam, Etsy’s sellers are usually authentic American leftists and their products a genuine expression of partisan hatred.

Etsy knowingly allowed this climate of hate to proliferate on its platform in violation of its terms of service which ban “violent language” even while it was cracking down on anything that was in the slightest politically incorrect.

It’s not just Amazon and Etsy. “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise is commonplace on other giant online retail platforms like eBay, and across smaller merchandising sites.

While some of the “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise claims to come from America, the vast majority is being produced in Communist China.

The People’s Republic of China does not actually turn a blind eye toward what it mass produces. Merchandise critical of Xi or the PRC being produced in China is unthinkable and writers trying to get books critical of Communism printed in China have run into problems.

China’s mass production of merchandise calling for President Trump’s death or murder is a decision that would have been made at some point within the Communist Party bureaucracy which maintains extensive censorship over any kind of speech in the giant dictatorship.

And Chinese companies not only produce products celebrating Trump’s death for third parties, but Chinese companies are deeply immersed in the business of marketing these products on their largest retail platforms.

Temu, a Chinese Communist company, has a large selection of “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise specifically targeting Trump. Critics have pointed out that Temu “maintains documented connections to the Chinese Communist Party” meaning that the slogan is being promoted to Americans by a company linked to an enemy regime.

So this is not simply a decision by one Chinese retail platform to stock Trump death gear.

Shein, the second largest Chinese retail ‘fast fashion’ platform used by Americans, also lists “Is He Dead Yet” t-shirts explicitly referencing Trump. Alibaba, one of the world’s largest retailers, has “Is He Dead Yet” t-shirts listed on its AliExpress direct sales platform. “Is He Dead Yet” is not a Chinese information op, but China’s Communist system is happy to promote it.

As are Amazon, Etsy, eBay and other major retail giants that censor conservatives, but empower leftists to celebrate and call for the deaths of Trump and other conservatives.

Charlie Kirk’s murder was marinated in internet memes. These memes are promoted and enabled by a Big Tech system that practices two-tier content policing. The “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise is an example of the kinds of popular leftist memes that make the murder of conservatives into a knowingly hip joke that eventually leads to an assassin’s bullet.

The Left has traded debate and democracy for fantasizing about the deaths of its enemies.

And some leftists do more than fantasize. That is how a bullet clipped President Trump’s ear. It’s why Charlie Kirk is dead. Woke corporations pretend that they had nothing to do with it, but the moment you search their platforms, you find that they were actually profiting from the death cult.

After Charlie Kirk’s murder, two Muslim men in Utah were arrested for planting an incendiary device under a FOX affiliate’s news van. The most striking thing about their house, as Front Page Magazine had reported, was that it appeared to be covered in anti-Trump signage.

Including a black flag reading, “Is He Dead Yet?”

“Is He Dead Yet” merchandise also made a recent appearance when a New York City public school teacher posted a photo of himself wearing that t-shirt and celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death.

In a famously sensitive era, where do you go to buy a “Is he dead yet?” t-shirt or flag? Anywhere as it turns out. Especially from those retailers that have relentlessly censored conservatives.

Amazon had censored everything from books against transgenderism and BLM to banning the sale of the Confederate flag (and even at one point pulling episodes of the Dukes of Hazzard) but you can get a “Is He Dead Yet” flag which the Amazon description openly bills as “an anti-Trump flag” making it clear that it’s not a reference to any other memes with that line.

(The actual Amazon seller is in Eastern Europe, so Amazon is helping a foreign national sell materials to Americans calling for the death of the President of the United States. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post which spent a lot of time warning about foreign interference and foreign disinformation, but its owner actually profits nicely from it.)

Amazon also stocks mugs, t-shirts, stickers and bumper stickers with that phrase that specifically refer to Trump. One ‘Is He Dead Yet’ mug features various possible tombstones for President Trump including “Psycho”, “8647”, “Epstein’s Bestie” and “Rapist”. The same seller also sells Newsom memes including ‘Newsom Was Right About Everything’ merchandise.

Another seller features an orange toupee over the “He”. Others are mock MAGA hats. Some of the Chinese sellers pushing merchandise calling for Trump’s death also responded to Charlie Kirk’s murder by pushing merchandise commemorating his killing to conservatives. Nothing else could or should be expected from China, but it’s Amazon that bears the responsibility here.

So much so that Amazon appears to have paid for Google ads for “Is He Dead Yet”.

Amazon allowed all of this to proliferate on its platform even after two assassination attempts against President Trump and has taken no action to remove it and enforce its terms of service.

Etsy, which had relentlessly censored not only conservatives, but anything un-woke including Dr. Seuss merchandise (after he was deemed racist) and the slogan “I Love JK Rowling”, and recently once again rewrote its TOS to prohibit “degrading language” towards illegal aliens, is awash in every possible variety of Trump death merchandise including mock wine labels and a mug reading “Is He Dead Yet” with Trump’s signature as an EKG line from the ‘resistance’.

After Charlie Kirk’s murder, two Muslim men in Utah were arrested for planting an incendiary device under a FOX affiliate’s news van. The most striking thing about their house, as Front Page Magazine had reported, was that it appeared to be covered in anti-Trump signage.

Including a black flag reading, “Is He Dead Yet?”

“Is He Dead Yet” merchandise also made a recent appearance when a New York City public school teacher posted a photo of himself wearing that t-shirt and celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death.

In a famously sensitive era, where do you go to buy a “Is he dead yet?” t-shirt or flag? Anywhere as it turns out. Especially from those retailers that have relentlessly censored conservatives.

Amazon had censored everything from books against transgenderism and BLM to banning the sale of the Confederate flag (and even at one point pulling episodes of the Dukes of Hazzard) but you can get a “Is He Dead Yet” flag which the Amazon description openly bills as “an anti-Trump flag” making it clear that it’s not a reference to any other memes with that line.

(The actual Amazon seller is in Eastern Europe, so Amazon is helping a foreign national sell materials to Americans calling for the death of the President of the United States. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post which spent a lot of time warning about foreign interference and foreign disinformation, but its owner actually profits nicely from it.)

Amazon also stocks mugs, t-shirts, stickers and bumper stickers with that phrase that specifically refer to Trump. One ‘Is He Dead Yet’ mug features various possible tombstones for President Trump including “Psycho”, “8647”, “Epstein’s Bestie” and “Rapist”. The same seller also sells Newsom memes including ‘Newsom Was Right About Everything’ merchandise.

Another seller features an orange toupee over the “He”. Others are mock MAGA hats. Some of the Chinese sellers pushing merchandise calling for Trump’s death also responded to Charlie Kirk’s murder by pushing merchandise commemorating his killing to conservatives. Nothing else could or should be expected from China, but it’s Amazon that bears the responsibility here.

So much so that Amazon appears to have paid for Google ads for “Is He Dead Yet”.

Amazon allowed all of this to proliferate on its platform even after two assassination attempts against President Trump and has taken no action to remove it and enforce its terms of service.

Etsy, which had relentlessly censored not only conservatives, but anything un-woke including Dr. Seuss merchandise (after he was deemed racist) and the slogan “I Love JK Rowling”, and recently once again rewrote its TOS to prohibit “degrading language” towards illegal aliens, is awash in every possible variety of Trump death merchandise including mock wine labels and a mug reading “Is He Dead Yet” with Trump’s signature as an EKG line from the ‘resistance’.

RIP Trump postcards” feature a dead Trump with X’s over his eyes in clown makeup. “It won’t solve everything when he exits this mortal stage, but it will feel f*cking great,” the description reads. An ‘Anti-Trump’ wine label features a skull and the motto “open drink, dance on grave.” There are stickers with an orange toupee on a skull, a “we’ll be grateful when he’s dead” sticker of dancing skeletons, and a scented soy wax candle titled “Smells like his funeral”.

Unlike Amazon, which is dominated by Chinese third party seller spam, Etsy’s sellers are usually authentic American leftists and their products a genuine expression of partisan hatred.

Etsy knowingly allowed this climate of hate to proliferate on its platform in violation of its terms of service which ban “violent language” even while it was cracking down on anything that was in the slightest politically incorrect.

It’s not just Amazon and Etsy. “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise is commonplace on other giant online retail platforms like eBay, and across smaller merchandising sites.

While some of the “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise claims to come from America, the vast majority is being produced in Communist China.

So this is not simply a decision by one Chinese retail platform to stock Trump death gear.

Shein, the second largest Chinese retail ‘fast fashion’ platform used by Americans, also lists “Is He Dead Yet” t-shirts explicitly referencing Trump. Alibaba, one of the world’s largest retailers, has “Is He Dead Yet” t-shirts listed on its AliExpress direct sales platform. “Is He Dead Yet” is not a Chinese information op, but China’s Communist system is happy to promote it.

As are Amazon, Etsy, eBay and other major retail giants that censor conservatives, but empower leftists to celebrate and call for the deaths of Trump and other conservatives.

Charlie Kirk’s murder was marinated in internet memes. These memes are promoted and enabled by a Big Tech system that practices two-tier content policing. The “Is He Dead Yet” merchandise is an example of the kinds of popular leftist memes that make the murder of conservatives into a knowingly hip joke that eventually leads to an assassin’s bullet.

The Left has traded debate and democracy for fantasizing about the deaths of its enemies.

And some leftists do more than fantasize. That is how a bullet clipped President Trump’s ear. It’s why Charlie Kirk is dead. Woke corporations pretend that they had nothing to do with it, but the moment you search their platforms, you find that they were actually profiting from the death cult.

Daniel Greenfield, Front Page Magazine

Transitioning Social Security: Lessons from the GI Bill

The GI Bill provides a valuable example of how a large government benefit program can be restructured over time without breaking commitments to those already enrolled. When the GI Bill was updated, existing veterans retained their full benefits, while new recruits gradually began contributing toward their education benefits. This phased approach balanced fairness with fiscal responsibility.

Why Change Social Security?

Social Security, as it currently stands, faces significant financial challenges. With an aging population, longer life expectancies, and a shrinking ratio of workers to beneficiaries, the system’s trust fund is projected to be depleted within the next couple of decades. Without reform, benefits may need to be cut, taxes raised, or both — posing a serious risk to the retirement security of millions.

A Proposed Transition Model

• Grandfather Current Beneficiaries: To honor commitments, those already receiving Social Security benefits, or near retirement, would remain on the current system.
• Phased Implementation for Younger Workers: New entrants to the workforce would have their Social Security taxes redirected into private, individually managed retirement accounts (similar to 401(k)s), giving them greater control over their savings and investments.
• Government Role: The government would transition to a regulatory and safety net role—overseeing these private accounts, limiting investment risks, and potentially providing minimum guarantees to reduce individual risk.

Pros of this Approach:

• Individual Control: Workers manage their own retirement savings, tailoring investments to their risk tolerance.
• Potential for Higher Returns: Historically, diversified investment accounts have yielded better returns than the current Social Security system.
• Fiscal Sustainability: Reduces the long-term financial burden on the government by shifting responsibility toward individuals.
• Preserves Promises: Grandfathering current beneficiaries respects existing commitments.

Cons and Challenges:

• Transition Costs: Funding current retirees while accumulating private accounts for younger workers requires significant government outlays.
• Market Risk: Individuals bear investment risks, which could jeopardize retirement security if markets underperform.
• Administrative Complexity: While managing millions of individual accounts can be complex, much of the administration would be outsourced to private financial institutions—similar to how 401(k) plans operate today. This could reduce government overhead but would require strong regulatory oversight to ensure transparency, security, and fairness.
• Equity Concerns: Not all workers may have equal ability to save or invest wisely, raising concerns about disparities.

Conclusion

Just as the GI Bill’s phased transition balanced fairness with fiscal realities, a similar approach could help modernize Social Security. It offers a pathway to sustainability while empowering individuals—though it must be carefully designed to manage risks and maintain equity.

Anonymous

I’ve been watching the left’s response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination for over a full week. The irony is that this singular event has fully exposed the left – including political leadership – of qualifying violence against disagreeable debate (“fascist” / “racist” / “hitler” etc.) which has obviously made them directly culpable for his murder through incitement of hate among the most vulnerable, mentally unstable of the populace.

The news has been peppered with the consequences of what some on the left have called ‘free speech’ as they celebrate political murder, the killing of a deeply religious but respectful man for debating mere ideas and engaging conversations about sometimes emotional topics. These consequences have resulted in many losing their jobs, the most disturbing of whom are the people responsible for educating our children (and that includes at least one local example @ Thurston HS).

But the veracity of the left’s defense of Jimmy Kimmel’s FCC-violating blatant “MAGA” lie about Charlie Kirk’s assassin wasn’t the worst of it: The democrats’ standing ovation for ilhan omar’s comments about Charlie Kirk being a “hateful man” was the proverbial straw.

Thus, I must opine about some facts I’ve not read or heard discussed ANYWHERE:

The same people who are celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder, defending such and all of the inciting rhetoric which preceded, including threatening those on the right who would choose to follow Charlie’s footsteps and engage in open debate…

…are the same people who are ironically beholden to the ‘religion’ of COVID: 6-feet, masking, lockdowns, and mandates…all of which they compelled via the STATE with special emphasis on “the science” which has been thoroughly and completely debunked, with real threats of state prosecution, fines and jail time, including censorship of debate of what were once labeled as ‘conspiracy theories’…

…all in the name of “if it saves just one life.” All lies, all with terrible consequences to both life & liberty.

Family relationships were damaged, careers destroyed, a generation of children adversely affected in ways they’ll be studying for decades, senior victims of COVID victimized and killed plus a whole segment of our population exposed to an anti-virus chemical compound that they told us was “safe & effective” under “emergency use authorization” which is now proving to be quite the opposite: Damaging to health, reproduction and downright deadly.

Yet I heard radio commercials here promoting said chemicals JUST THIS AFTERNOON.

So, I have a message:

To those who were hysterically beholden to the ‘religion’ of COVID – from bottom all the way up to those making & enforcing policy – and now stubbornly defiant in justification of your rhetoric and your supporters’ threats of violence against us on the right – the latest as of this writing against WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt – as you continue to dramatically expose your deep hatred of those with whom you disagree:

We…are…watching…you.

I’m not on social media. I’m angry. This is one of my only outlets. I wrote this after these thoughts occurred to me after reading breaking news yesterday afternoon:

I’ve been watching the left’s response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination for over a full week. The irony is that this singular event has fully exposed the left – including political leadership – of qualifying violence against disagreeable debate (“fascist” / “racist” / “hitler” etc.) which has obviously made them directly culpable for his murder through incitement of hate among the most vulnerable, mentally unstable of the populace.

The news has been peppered with the consequences of what some on the left have called ‘free speech’ as they celebrate political murder, the killing of a deeply religious but respectful man for debating mere ideas and engaging conversations about sometimes emotional topics. These consequences have resulted in many losing their jobs, the most disturbing of whom are the people responsible for educating our children (and that includes at least one local example @ Thurston HS).

But the veracity of the left’s defense of Jimmy Kimmel’s FCC-violating blatant “MAGA” lie about Charlie Kirk’s assassin wasn’t the worst of it: The democrats’ standing ovation for ilhan omar’s comments about Charlie Kirk being a “hateful man” was the proverbial straw.

Thus, I must opine about some facts I’ve not read or heard discussed ANYWHERE:

The same people who are celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder, defending such and all of the inciting rhetoric which preceded, including threatening those on the right who would choose to follow Charlie’s footsteps and engage in open debate…

…are the same people who are ironically beholden to the ‘religion’ of COVID: 6-feet, masking, lockdowns, and mandates…all of which they compelled via the STATE with special emphasis on “the science” which has been thoroughly and completely debunked, with real threats of state prosecution, fines and jail time, including censorship of debate of what were once labeled as ‘conspiracy theories’…

…all in the name of “if it saves just one life.” All lies, all with terrible consequences to both life & liberty.

Family relationships were damaged, careers destroyed, a generation of children adversely affected in ways they’ll be studying for decades, senior victims of COVID victimized and killed plus a whole segment of our population exposed to an anti-virus chemical compound that they told us was “safe & effective” under “emergency use authorization” which is now proving to be quite the opposite: Damaging to health, reproduction and downright deadly.

Yet I heard radio commercials here promoting said chemicals JUST THIS AFTERNOON.

So, I have a message:

To those who were hysterically beholden to the ‘religion’ of COVID – from bottom all the way up to those making & enforcing policy – and now stubbornly defiant in justification of your rhetoric and your supporters’ threats of violence against us on the right – the latest as of this writing against WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt – as you continue to dramatically expose your deep hatred of those with whom you disagree:

We…are…watching…you.

Anonymous

With the holidays just a few months away, I’ve been thinking about something that we all seem to crave: Unconditional love. Readers, listeners and clients tell me all the time how unconditional love, especially for a child or a parent, is the highest ideal we could live up to. Really? Let’s look a little closer.

People yearn for unconditional love because it’s natural to want to be loved just for who you are. But the phrase “for who you are” clearly implies a stipulation that someone loves you for the qualities you possess. Let’s say you’re intelligent and courageous. Wouldn’t you prefer to be loved by someone who values intelligence and courage, rather than someone who couldn’t care less?

My point is this: Conditions are inescapable. As an adult, you can’t love, or be loved, unconditionally. Of course young children in their early years need to feel just plain loved, but older children will not benefit from literal unconditional love that sends the message that the parents blindly accept everything the child does – all in the interest of his or her supposed “self-esteem.” So, if the child lies or steals, a parent should not show anger or hurt at the risk of implying that their love is in jeopardy. Forget about telling the child that lying or stealing is wrong. If their love is truly unconditional, then there’s no need for right and wrong. That’s no way to raise a kid. The result? Just look at what’s happening today in the streets of many big cities.

This isn’t to say that young children don’t require a highly tolerant form of love. After all, their intellectual and psychological development is not yet complete. But even then, this love must include limits and conditions. If your child accidentally breaks a vase, you’ll feel temporary irritation. But you say, “Yes, I was aggravated when you dropped the vase, but I never stopped loving you.”

On the other hand, if your child does something deliberately malicious, such as stealing or initiating violence (outside of self-defense), then in that particular context you should wholeheartedly withdraw your approval. You should tell him why you disapprove of his actions, and why you’re disappointed in his choice to act that way. You can make it clear that you will forgive him only if he shows resolve not to repeat the behavior. My experience over the years has shown that the last thing a child needs to hear is that he or she will (and should) always be loved regardless of actions and behavior. A child needs to learn the distinction between innocent errors (like how easily vases can break) and willful actions such as lying, theft and violence. Of course, children need patience and time to acquire adult knowledge and that’s precisely why parents must apply consistent conditions and clearly stated consequences.

Such lessons can be difficult, and may require a temporary withdrawal of affection between the parent and the child. But that approach is kinder because it helps the child learn to think beyond the immediate whims of the moment. Without such training, he or she is likely to remain – from a psychological point-of-view – a child forever.

Conditions, however implicit, are part of life. It’s dishonest to claim that you love someone “unconditionally.” After all, don’t you love someone because they’re special and because they stand out in some way? Admiration and respect are a part of love. Parents love their children precisely because they are their own.

Be careful what you ask for! Unconditional love can include loving somebody out of pity, the need for control or for equally dishonest motives (which are, in fact, still conditions). This just doesn’t seem like the ideal relationship. There are always reasons why people are loved, whether they want to admit it or not. And the same goes for kids. By denying them conditions and consequences, they will never grow past the artificial “safe haven” of childhood and into independent, secure adults.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach