SoylentNews

DC police chief offers simple solution to get homicide rates down: 'Keep violent people in jail'
The D.C. Council Chairman just pulled legislation Monday that would have reduced maximum penalties and abolished minimum penalties for various crimes

Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee gave a simple solution for what Washington, D.C., can do differently to get homicides down Monday: "Keep violent people in jail."

Contee was speaking along with Mayor Muriel Bowser at Mayoral Public Safety Media Availability to discuss crime in the District. He responded to a reporter's question about how to address increased homicides rates in the city.

"What we got to do, if we really want to see homicides go down, is keep bad guys with guns in jail. Because when they're in jail, they can't be in communities shooting people. So when people talk about what we gonna do different, or what we should do different, what we need to do different, that’s the thing that we need to do different," Contee said.

"We need to keep violent people in jail. Right now, the average homicide suspect has been arrested eleven times prior to them committing a homicide," the chief continued. "That is a problem. That is a problem."

Repeat offenders are a problem in the nation's capital. Last month, Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., called out the city's elected officials over their soft on crime policies after she was assaulted by a homeless man. She was his thirteenth victim.

"I got attacked by someone who the District of Columbia has not prosecuted fully over the course of almost a decade, over the course of 12 assaults before mine that morning," Craig said at the time. "I mean, it wasn’t even in every instance that he got 10 days or 30 days. Many times, the charges were completely dropped before any justice was achieved at all."

Last year, D.C. hit 200 murders in consecutive years for the first time since 2003.

Among the topics covered during Monday's press conference included the apparent defeat of the D.C. City Council's attempt to soften penalties on violent crimes through revisions to the criminal code.

The crime bill would have reduced maximum penalties for violent crimes such as burglaries, robberies and carjackings, along with abolishing minimum sentences for most crimes. It faced backlash even from some liberals with Bowser vetoing it in January, though the city council overrode her veto.

Monday, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson pulled the controversial crime bill after the U.S. House voted to block it and President Biden said he would not veto Congress' decision.

The U.S. Senate may still vote on the legislation with the potential for up to 20 Democrats to side with Republicans in voting against the bill. However, it is unclear if the Senate still can vote on the bill as a symbolic gesture given that it was pulled by the chairman.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dc-police-chief-offers-simple-solution-get-homicide-rates-keep-violent-people-jail

The news: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/chicago-man-suspected-burglar-home/?intcid=CNM-00-10abd1h

CHICAGO (CBS) -- Only on 2: A father detained a suspected burglar in his own garage.

His wife and two-year-old daughter are inside the house as this all happened. He is speaking exclusively with CBS 2's Sabrina Franza, reporting from Wrigleyville.

"Went into the garage and I just followed him into the garage."

Niko Kara was the only person standing between, he said, a suspected burglar and his family. His two-year-old daughter was sound asleep upstairs when Kara said a man broke into the garage.

"It happened quick. I just followed the guy. I didn't want him to cause anymore harm."

Kara first learned the man was there when he tried getting into the front entrance. His Ring camera caught someone moving.

"It was a surprise for all of us."

He and his wife realized the man got into the garage behind the house. Kara followed and found him going through boxes as his wife called 911.

Kara, a concealed carry permit holder, and that suspect, stood still behind this garage door. He raised his weapon but did not fire. He waited for police to show.

"He was quick to show me his hands and drop whatever he was holding in his hands."

Which was a phone and a water bottle.

"They were here in about 45 seconds and he couldn't get out of the garage. I was standing in the door," Kara said.

A Ring camera from across the alley caught the garage door opening as police stood outside. The suspect ran but didn't make it far. Chicago police took him into custody shortly after.

"You know what, I'm really happy that I spent last night at my home, in bed, and everybody was safe. The bad guy got arrested."

Both Kara and his wife are very shaken up by this, but are both doing ok. His two-year-old daughter slept through the entire thing.

Charges against the man they say broke in are still pending.

What the newsies didn't tell us:

The Declining Value of Higher Education: Burglar With Gender Studies Degree Held At Gunpoint by Chicago Resident

While they may be highly prized in ivory tower universities, out here in the real world, gender and women’s studies degrees don’t take you far or open many doors to high-paying jobs. Bringing nothing but a gender studies degree to a gunfight also seems like a good way of proving its worthlessness. A Monday evening break-in in Chicago’s Wrigleyville neighborhood was the perfect case for proving that hypothesis.

A homeowner with a surveillance camera system noticed a prowler lurking outside his home. Mr. Homeowner, the proud holder of a carry license, then checked his attached garage. That’s where police say he found 31-year-old Tyler Hamlin.

The armed homeowner held Hamlin — on probation and wanted under two active felony warrants — at gunpoint until police arrived. Given Mr. Hamlin’s history of serial criminal activity and violence, the gun proved a wise decision.

The homeowner, identified as Niko Kara by CBS2 in Chicago said he was the only thing standing between the intruder and Kara’s wife and 2-year-old daughter.

Here’s the story from CWB Chicago . . .
The concealed carry holder received a security alert showing someone was on his porch with a flashlight in the 3500 block of North Fremont in Wrigleyville around 8:30 p.m. Monday…

“[The police] were here in about 45 seconds, and he couldn’t get out of the garage. I was standing in the door,” the homeowner told CBS2 before charges were filed.

A Ring camera from across the alley caught the garage door opening as police stood outside. The suspect ran but didn't make it far. Chicago police took him into custody shortly after.

"You know what, I'm really happy that I spent last night at my home, in bed, and everybody was safe. The bad guy got arrested."

Both Kara and his wife are very shaken up by this, but are both doing ok. His two-year-old daughter slept through the entire thing.

Charges against the man they say broke in are still pending.

The concealed carry holder received a security alert showing someone was on his porch with a flashlight in the 3500 block of North Fremont in Wrigleyville around 8:30 p.m. Monday…

“[The police] were here in about 45 seconds, and he couldn’t get out of the garage. I was standing in the door,” the homeowner told CBS2 before charges were filed.

Hamlin’s lawyer apparently thought this fact would attest to what a fine, upstanding person his client is . . .

Hamlin’s defense attorney said he has a bachelor’s degree in psychology and gender and women’s studies from UIC. He’s unhoused and unemployed.

The “unhoused” Mr. Hamlin — that’s newspeak for homeless — has quite the criminal history. In 2020, he allegedly tried to skip out on a cab fare, eventually battering the cabbie and an Illinois State Trooper before being arrested. Unfortunately for him, that infraction took place in Will County, south of Chicago where they actually prosecute criminals.

Hamlin blew off his court date on that case and forfeited his bond, resulting in a warrant on the case per the Will County Circuit Court Clerk.

Meanwhile, Cook County prosecutors gave him probation when he pled down an aggravated arson charge — a Class X felony (6 to 30 years in prison) — to a criminal damage to property charge (potentially just a misdemeanor).

And there’s another battery charge in Chicago from April, 2022.

Hamlin is currently being held without bail on the outstanding warrants. How long that will last is anyone’s guess in Chicago’s revolving door criminal justice system. In the mean time, he can regale his cellmates with the finer points he picked up while earning the gender and women’s studies degrees that helped make him the man he is today.

Almost makes you regret that you never took gender studies, don't it?

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-declining-value-of-higher-education-burglar-with-gender-studies-degree-held-at-gunpoint-by-chicago-resident/

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicyfoundation/pages/3970/attachments/original/1675361904/United_States_v_Rahimi_Opinion.pdf

Before Jones, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Cory T. Wilson, Circuit Judge:
The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the
possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining
order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second
Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle
& Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.

That paragraph sums it up pretty nicely, but I encourage you to read the entire decision.

Mr. Rahimi seems a proper scoundrel, and I hate that such a person might be made an icon for 2nd amendment rights - but he challenged an unjust law, and the court decided in his favor.

Red flag laws are hardly any different than the issue decided here. Just like a jealous ex can get a restraining order on a whim, the same jealous ex can pick up the phone and make up a story about you being suicidal, or threatening, or whatever. In short, anyone can strip you of your rights, just to be vindictive if they only get the restraining order, or cite a red flag law.

Moving forward, I expect to see more due process before people are stripped of their 2A rights. Sure, a lot of fools bargain, and surrender their rights. But, you'll still see more due process in the coming years.

From my email. Yeah, it's a wall of text. Read it or not, your choice.

Conservative Inc And The Deal With The Daily Wire Devil

This week Steven Crowder made headlines for turning down a 50 million dollar term sheet offered by The Daily Wire. The term sheet, which would have forced Steven to sign over his email list, social media accounts, and revenue streams from his Mug Club, among other things from his life’s work, raised concerns about censorship and the gatekeeping of content creators by large conservative media companies and their owners.

The point of this article is to open your eyes to why your favorite conservative media outlets are not on our side and help you understand that they exist to keep you from discussing ideas that threaten the power of the Regime. These types of exploitative gatekeeping deals are not the outlier; they are the norm. Unlike most of the talking heads I have no gatekeeping contracts and thus can speak freely on these matters and tell you the unfortunate truth that you need to hear.

The Daily Wire is currently trying to gaslight Crowder and make this issue about money or greed when anyone paying attention knows that is not the case. This is a projection on their part because money is indeed what they care about here and in general. They can’t imagine that someone would reject that much money, and it “offends” them. They cry out in pain as they strike Crowder with a terrible one-sided deal for his soul.
It’s not about money, it’s about controlling the narrative.

Toss out the religious bits if you like, the message remains the same. The Establishment wants to censor all opposing views.

Oh - Torba supplies a link to his blog, where he wrote the same thing: https://news.gab.com/2023/01/conservative-inc-and-the-deal-with-the-daily-wire-devil/

Chief Justice John Roberts pays tribute to judge in Little Rock school desegregation case. Is there a hidden message?

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts opened his year-end report on the federal judiciary with a tribute to federal Judge Ronald Davies, dispatched from North Dakota to preside over proceedings attendant to the 1957 crisis fomented by Orval Faubus over the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School.

Roberts commented:

Judge Davies had no idea what cases he would draw upon his arrival. But when it came time to rule in the school desegregation litigation, Davies did not flinch. As he recalled years later, his decision did not involve any difficult legal interpretation: “It was purely a question of whether the Governor of the State of Arkansas could get away with the doctrine of interposition, placing himself between the Federal Government and the people of Arkansas. The law was very clear that the schools had to be integrated.” In deciding the case, Judge Davies said: “I have a constitutional duty and obligation from which I shall not shrink. In an organized society, there can be nothing but ultimate confusion and chaos if court decrees are flaunted.”

It made me wonder: Does that mean Roberts would stand by that precedent today? The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already put itself squarely on the side of a new brand of Arkansas interposition, encouraging school district transfers that produce segregated public schools. Legislators are hungering to pay for private school tuition for students who’ve fled public schools with too many poor students of color. More broadly, others on the court speak of affirmative action and equal protection based on classifications such as race and sexual identity as reverse discrimination. They’d tear down precedent that, for example, outlawed bans on interracial marriage.

Roberts writes that the General Services Administration and the district court in Little Rock have a project underway to refurbish the courtroom Davies used in a way faithful to that era. It will be used as a courtroom again, as well as for “programs about the events of 1957 and the rule of law in our country.” (Is that, too, a veiled reference to disrespect for the rule of law these days?) The special events will include the National High School Mock Trial Championship in May. Roberts wrote

But first, GSA and the District Court have loaned the bench to the Supreme Court for a special exhibit that will open this fall and run for the next several years. The authentic bench will give visitors an opportunity to transport themselves in place and time to the events in Little Rock of 65 years ago. The exhibit will introduce visitors to how the system of federal courts works, to the history of racial segregation and desegregation in our country, and to Thurgood Marshall’s towering contributions as an advocate before he became a Justice. Come and visit the Court and—starting this fall— have a close-up look at the historic bench Judge Davies used.

My editorial: The exhibit won’t be complete without a mention of the resegregation of U.S. schools and the racial disparities that continue 65 years after Davies’ work.

His writing about Davies was a long introduction to a conclusion about the threats judges face, the need for security for them and thanks for action by Congress for responding to judicial security needs. It included this local reference.

Judicial opinions speak for themselves, and there is no obligation in our free country to agree with them. Indeed, we judges frequently dissent—sometimes strongly—from our colleagues’ opinions, and we explain why in public writings about the cases before us. But Judge Davies was physically threatened for following the law. His wife feared for his safety. The judge was uncowed, and happily so were others who stuck up for the rule of law— not just with regards to the judge, but to even greater threats against the schoolchildren, their families, and leaders like the NAACP’s Daisy Bates. Following a bomb threat on the Sam Peck Hotel where Judge Davies was staying across the street from the courthouse, the judge offered to the proprietor to move elsewhere. Mr. Peck said, “no Judge, you stay right here.”

(Just dismiss the paywall popup.) https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2023/01/01/chief-justice-john-roberts-pays-tribute-to-judge-in-little-rock-school-desegregation-case-is-there-a-hidden-message

The actual report, PDF format here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2022year-endreport.pdf

Those of you who have actually read that, and digested it, might want to stick around for a video. Perhaps Roberts has made some veiled threats to states other than Arkansas . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j6zSysZ6i4

Rest in Peace, Judge Davies.

Maine Crime Fell Following 2015 Repeal of Gun Control Law

When Maine began allowing eligible residents to carry concealed firearms without a government license in 2015, gun control advocates warned that Wild West-style gun violence would erupt across the state.

Instead, the opposite has happened.

In fact, property crime and violent crime have fallen in Maine since the 2015 reform, according to crime data tracked by the FBI.

The reform, introduced by State Sen. Eric Brakey (R-Auburn) and signed into law by Republican Gov. Paul LePage, ended a state-run gun control program that required individuals to obtain a permit before carrying a concealed firearm — effectively adopting a policy known informally as Constitutional Carry.

While rates of violent crime increased nationally from 2015 to 2020, the rate of violent crime in Maine fell steadily beginning in 2015, after a slight increase from 2014 to 2015, according to data collected by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program.

Property crimes, such as robbery, larceny, and burglary, which had already been declining since 2012, continued to fall in line with the national trend. Property crime rates are now lower than at any time since 1985, when the FBI data begins.

Is the old adage — an armed society is a polite society — proven true by Maine’s experience?

The correlation between decreased gun control and decreased crime doesn’t mean expanded exercise of Second Amendment rights is responsible for the decline.

But it does suggest that repealing the concealed carry permitting law in 2015 did not coincide with any increases in violent crime, as many anti-gun critics predicted.

Despite what the evidence shows about violence, crime, and firearms use in Maine, some state lawmakers are nonetheless planning a new push for gun control legislation.

According to reporting in the Bangor paper, State Rep. Vicki Doudera (D-Camden) is part of a group of Democratic lawmakers looking to advance gun control bills in response to several hoax threats made against Maine schools.

It’s not clear how new gun control laws would prevent hoax threats made online or over the phone.

During her first term in office, Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, typically shied away from supporting gun control measures popular with the far left.

However, her calculus may change now that she’s not navigating Augusta politics with a view toward re-election to the Blaine House.

https://www.themainewire.com/2022/12/maine-crime-fell-following-2015-repeal-of-gun-control-law/

Alright, I can't say that crime fell because constitutional carry became the law. If you look closely, neither does the author make that claim.

What I can say, most definitively, is that the gun control crowd has it all wrong. They predicted that crime, gun crime, and so-called "gun deaths" would increase because of constitutional carry! Flat out wrong!

Where the author asks whether an armed society is a polite society, I will boldly state that to be a fact. Only idiots and crazies will act out in the presence of other people who are able and willing to deal with them. Even most of the idiots and crazies prefer to seek out unarmed sheep in "gun free" zones. They seldom walk into a police station, where almost everyone is armed, to start shooting random strangers.

I will also state that gun control laws actually create criminals. Many people over the past century have been convicted of violating some asinine law that doesn't even make sense, let alone pass constitutional examination. How about idiot concealed carry laws that say, if you purchase a brand new weapon, a box of ammo, throw them on the seat of your vehicle, and drive home, you're a criminal? No weapons, no ammo, within reach of persons in the vehicle is and/or was the law in many states.

Constitutional carry is the only way to go. If you're not a prohibited person, you have the right to carry concealed, open carry, or to stow your weapons any place you like, in any manner you like. If you're stupid enough to allow children to get to your weapons, and an accident happens, then you are liable under all manner of civil laws. But the state need not get involved.

‘I Can’t Think of Anything More Tyrannical’ – Judge Benitez Will Block California’s Gun Control ‘Fee-Shifting’ Law

The sharpest thorn in the side of California’s gun-grabbers has done it again. Federal Judge Roger Benitez — who has already issued rulings, currently in the appellate and post-appellate pipeline, tossing California’s “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans — ruled Friday that he would be enjoining a California law designed to discourage challenges to California’s gun control laws.

The newly-minted California law makes litigants and their attorneys liable for the state’s legal fees if they challenge a California gun law and are not 100% successful.

That inverts the usual practice under federal civil rights law, under which a plaintiff is considered the “prevailing party” (and thus eligible for an award of attorneys fees and costs of court) if it prevails on any of its claims challenging the constitutionality of a law.

A plaintiff can also be a “prevailing party” eligible for fees if the state moots the case by changing the challenged law, a la New York’s last-minute dodge in the first New York Pistol & Rifle Association case.

While there are situations (e.g., copyright infringement lawsuits) where an unsuccessful plaintiff can be held liable for the defendant’s attorneys fees, a party’s attorneys are typically personally liable for an opposing party’s fees only if they sign onto utterly frivolous filings (i.e., materials that violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11), disobey a court order, unreasonably and vexaciously complicate a case, etc.

The California law at issue was passed earlier this year in a fit of pique after the Supreme Court issued the Bruen and Dobbs decisions, and refused to enjoin a Texas law that authorized private actions to enforce the state’s “fetal heartbeat” law. California’s attorney general asserted that while the state believed the Texas law was unconstitutional, California would play “tit for tat” by passing a similar law designed to make it prohibitively expensive to challenge any California gun control law.

Understand that fighting a state like California in federal court is an inherently very expensive proposition, beyond the budget of all but the most well-heeled individuals. This is why organizations like the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and others are so essential to protecting our Second Amendment rights.

If you file a challenge to a California gun law, the odds are strong that you will draw a judge who will be, shall we say, not as disposed to Second Amendment rights as Judge Benitez. Litigating such a test case will thus likely be a very long and expensive process designed to eventually get the expected adverse decision from the California district court and the Ninth Circuit in front of the Supreme Court.

But under the new California law, if the district court or Ninth Circuit rules against you on even a subsidiary point of your lawsuit, you and your attorney would be immediately liable for what would probably be hundreds of thousands of dollars…or even more. That would make challenging even obviously unconstitutional California gun control laws so economically risky that few if any victims affected by the law could do so. And very few attorneys would be willing to represent them, given the economic risks.

That, of course, was the state’s reason for passing it.

Fortunately, the Firearms Policy Coalition stepped up to challenge this law. And in a master stroke of lawyering, they were able to do so in a way that made it very, very likely that the case would be assigned to Judge Benitez. The FPC moved for an immediate injunction against the law.

California reacted predictably. First, it claimed the state would not enforce the law until its constitutionality had been decided, and therefore there was no need for an injunction. Judge Benitez rejected that almost immediately, noting that California has already used the threat of liability under the new law as leverage in other cases. Judge Benitez thus not only set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction, but also consolidated that with a trial on the merits. This isn’t unheard of in a case like this, where the facts are not in dispute and the only issues are legal ones.

After that ruling, the California attorney general – who was in a legally untenable position, given that he had already admitted that he believed the California law was unconstitutional – bowed out of the case, requiring the governor to hire outside attorneys to take over the defense of the law.

The hearing and trial were held yesterday. The transcript isn’t yet available, nor is there anything on the court’s docket at this time, but according to the press account of the hearing (h/t to Cody Wisniewski of the FPC for sending it to me last night) Judge Benitez ruled from the bench that he would be enjoining the law.

        “A federal judge on Friday said he will block part of a new California measure that critics say was designed to make it nearly impossible to challenge the state’s gun laws in court.” https://t.co/mT6idlbACk

        — Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 16, 2022

Judge Benitez ripped the state for playing games with people’s constitutional rights, saying, “I can’t think of anything more tyrannical.” He similarly castigated California’s claims that it was somehow justified in enacting the law response to the Texas abortion law, stating “[w]e’re not in a kindergarten sandbox. It’s not about, ‘Mommy he did this to me so I should be able to do it to him.’”

He also tartly asked the state’s attorney if he would be willing to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. When counsel claimed not to understand the question, Judge Benitez noted he was wise not to answer, because no attorney would want to risk being personally liable for paying the other side’s attorneys fees if he loses.

As is required by federal law, Judge Benitez will have to issue a written opinion making various findings and formally explaining his reasoning. I expect it will be out within the next month, and will likely be blisteringly critical of the state of California.

For now, let’s all raise a glass to Judge Roger Benitez for once again upholding the rule of law.

Cheers, Judge Roger!

Musk Is In Over His Head
December 16, 2022

Elon Musk is in over his head when it comes to free speech.

Musk is quickly learning that in order to run a free speech platform you need two things: thick skin and a fanatical commitment to free speech, even when being pro free speech is bad for business, and even when being pro free speech means tolerating the most excoriating criticism of yourself.

Elon’s “free speech” saga at Twitter is really nothing of the sort. He’s treating the product, and his users, as his playthings. Flailing, hyper-feminine emotional outbursts are a substitute for a “leadership style.” All told, he has revealed that he has no interest whatsoever in bringing actual free speech to Twitter.

Twitter was, ironically, more measured and free when there were thousands of mentally ill blue-haired Communists with their fingers on the ban hammer. At least the Communists tried to come up with an objective and consistent rationale for their actions. Contrast with Elon, who waved the flag of free speech as soon as he took over but immediately began compromising on that promise for the sake of business expediency.

When it came to Alex Jones being reinstated, Elon had an emotional reaction and invoked the loss of his child. When it came to Kathy Griffin impersonating him, Elon had an emotional reaction and swung the ban hammer on anyone in his way. When it came to Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, posting a symbol of a French UFO cult which combined a swastika and a Star of David, Elon had an emotional reaction and banned him so as to be hip with all of the other California types who were throwing Ye to the wolves.

Now with the ElonJet and journalist ban situation, where constitutionally protected information which is publicly available is being removed from the site (despite being massively available practically everywhere else on the Internet) Elon is once again “leading” with his emotions and treating Twitter not as a product, not as an essential and vital publication utility for the entire world, but as a toy, and one controlled by a petulant child at that.

Men who lead do not make decisions and dictate on the whims of their emotions. Weak, hyper-effete men “leading” with emotions instead of reason and logic is a big reason Western society is crumbling. Given Elon’s Reddit-tier political takes and patchy soy beard, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out that he is low on the testosterone side. But I digress.

Gab is for free speech. The lefty journalists recently banned from Twitter might not believe it but when they find that they get zero engagement on Mastodon and are looking to join a serious social media platform again, but Gab will be here waiting for them – and we will protect them from all censors, foreign and domestic, to the greatest extent possible– as long as their speech is lawful.

Some of these journalists who were banned last night, like Matt Binder, have been extremely critical of Gab and our users in the past. I don’t like Matt. He’s been unfair to Gab in the past. But Gab exists for him. Gab exists to provide a home and a megaphone for viewpoints that don’t have a home anywhere else. Until Elon took over Twitter, that meant we were a home for the right and center-right. After Elon took over, we are ready, willing, and able to provide that home for the left and center-left, just as we are prepared to host anyone who agrees that they will not violate U.S. law in the use of our service.

We can no longer afford to give any power whatsoever to petty tyrants who think themselves to be god-kings. This is the outcome when emasculated emotional losers “lead” our society: chaos, hypocrisy, destruction, and censorship.

Twitter is a big corporation and it has big corporate baggage. It needs huge quantities of advertising dollars from all over the world, including the most censorial European countries, just to survive. When EU bureaucrats tell him to censor Americans he has to obey. Last week the EU asked us to censor some Americans – citing no law that had been broken, simply saying that certain users were posting “propaganda” – and we told them to pound sand. No US court will ever enforce an unconstitutional European rule. If we never sell a dollar of ads in the European Union, that’s perfectly fine with us.

The reason I run Gab because I believe that protecting freedom of speech is a divine command. We must refuse to be “led” by anyone who is not themselves led by Jesus Christ. We deserve strong God-fearing Christian leaders in media, business, technology, culture, education, and government.

I may not agree with your beliefs. You may not agree with mine. You may think my belief in God is a backward superstition. I may think your atheism is corrosive. None of that matters. Whoever you are, wherever you are, I, and this company, will defend your right to speak freely on the Internet as long as we are able to do so.

Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
Jesus Christ is King of kings

https://news.gab.com/2022/12/musk-is-in-over-his-head/

Personally, I've watched the Twitter circus, and wondered what Elon was trying to do. He confuses me, TBH. I think maybe Torba has drilled to the root of the problem. Emotions. Emotional decisions aren't going to be money making decisions, or sound business decisions. Emotional Elon. Or, Emo Elon.

I was hoping he could make something of Twitter.

It starts with gasoline. Various guests seem to believe that I run a gas station. I buy 5 gallons of gasoline for lawn mowers, chain saws, or whatever, and it "evaporates" quickly. I need to lock it up.

However, most padlocks (in the USA) are really easy to pick. Master, American, or whatever, you just rake most of them, and they open. If you get one that won't rake, it's usually easy to pick them one pin at a time. I've routinely bypassed padlocks, most of my life.

Unfortunately, my kids have learned from me, so there's absolutely no point in buying a $10 Master lock, or even a $75 Master lock. Videos on Youtube will convince you that you can open the best of them in just a minute or two. OK, if you're not used to doing it, it might take you 30 minutes, but the point is, they are easy to open.

Ordered an Abus 83/45, with an RX1 restricted keyway, with serrated pins and spool pins in the cylinder. It's a seven pin cylinder, as opposed to the standard four pin cheap lock. Again, on Youtube, the better locksmiths can open them, but, it takes them more than a few seconds.

I guess I'm about to find out how skilled my sons are at picking locks. Or, I'll learn how fast they can learn to defeat a better lock!

If the gasoline evaporates behind this padlock, I'll up the ante with a more expensive, higher security lock, with an even better cylinder in it!

Someone asks, "What does that have to do with a tech site?"

The answer is, "Security is a process." You have to adapt to the threats that you are facing.

So, a used Lenovo ThinkCentre was brought into the house. No operating system, no video card. The machine is a small form factor, there's not much room in there to do anything. First order of business, install a video card - except, my choices are a GT 730 which is ancient, or a RTX 1650, which is a couple millimeters too long to fit. Yeah, it's low profile, it fits fine that way, but the hard drive mount folds down on top of the end of the card. Bleahhhh! I diddle around for a couple hours, finally decide I'm going to modify that fold-down thing. Get out a pair of cutters, and start snipping - finally, I have the card mounted.

Power up - I only get the left half of the screen. It's hard to install any operating system, if you can't see anything. Even a text install would be difficult! I boot into every operating system on my Ventoy USB stick, with the same results.

I guess something is wrong with the video card? I stick the other 1650 in there. No joy. Try the 730 just to be sure. Same thing.

Scroll through the BIOS setup a dozen times or more, changing settings, and it's STILL the same! I put a 1650 back in there, then I go into the monitor's settings, searching for something to adjust so I can see the entire screen. Even in BIOS setup, I can't see all of the screen. Weird!

After nearing exhaustion, searching for that magic setting, I go back into BIOS one more time. Scroll, scroll, scroll, oh - what's THIS? "Force specific OS settings for compatibility" or words to that effect. I turn it off, save, and reboot. AWESOME!! I get the whole screen now! Or, very nearly so. There seem to be a couple pixels missing on all four sides. Screw it, I'm installing Windows, I can search for those pixels later.

Win 11 Pro, local install, local logon, no attachment to any online accounts anywhere. Microsoft has sure screwed things up by insisting on a cloud logon to a local machine!!

Windows installed, update, update, update, update some more. Did I mention that I've used a custom install media? There is no Edge browser. No Cortana. A bunch of stuff was carved out before I ever stuck the USB in the drive. Install Nvidia driver, install Firefox, install Iridium browser, install Folding@Home, install Qbittorrent because I KNOW they're going to be torrenting, then install the VPN to avoid copyright trolls.

Everything is looking pretty good, except those missing pixels. I call up Nvidia control center, try one setting after another, with no luck. Ahhh, what's this? "Help". I click on it. YAY! Nvidia's help menu tells me to go into the monitor settings, and search for anything like "overscan". Yep, there it is. Turn off that overscan, and now I can see all those missing pixels.

What should have taken an hour or two, turned into about 10 hours of messing around. I mostly blame Lenovo. WTF, optimized OS defaults? Really? They don't work, not even for the OS that was apparently targeted by those defaults!!

And, why, oh why, did they make that case just about 3 mm too small for a more-or-less standard sized low profile video card? Nothing worthwhile is going to fit in there, without modification!

I'll share a bit of the blame. I probably should have caught that optimized defaults much sooner, and turned it off. But, I was tired when I started, then worked into the wee hours of the night trying to finish up.

Maybe I learned something from my mistakes. Like, don't start a project late in the day.

Then again, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I'll probably do things the same way next time!

Oh yeah. Folding at home? That Ryzen 7 promises to crank out ~85k points per day. And, the 1650 is showing ~450k. Production should pick up over the next few days! I'll take another 1/2 million PPD, give or take a little.