I don't think they do pelvis transplants. TD
Monday, September 7, 2026
You say you are now a woman but your pelvis says you are a non-birthing guy.
Mayor Mamdani Up All Night Practicing Sad Face For Upcoming 9/11 Observance
Or go on MSNOW and just be yourself.
NEW YORK, NY — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was reportedly seen standing in front of his bathroom mirror practicing his "sad face" in preparation for his upcoming appearance at the 9/11 memorial.
"The young mayor was seen smiling somberly, frowning, nodding, and furrowing his brows through the window of his New York City residence. The source who witnessed the scene believed Mamdani was practicing his facial expressions so he could more effectively pretend to be sad when remembering the deaths of thousands of Americans at the hands of Islamic terrorists.
"'It was weird," bystander Nate Signal said. "I was walking my dog and just happened to glance in his window, and I could see him shaking his head and dabbing at his eyes. But the weird thing was, there were no tears. It really seemed like he was trying to rehearse something."
"Controversy surrounding Mamdani's appearance at the event has mounted in recent days, as many said his past statements and present views on radical Islam taint the memory of the fallen.
"'I have to make it look just right," Mamdani reportedly commented to his friends. "They need to see that I'm sad, but also that I'm reflecting on what has been. And also that I'm just one of the guys. And also that I hate radicals of all kinds. Especially Israeli radicals."
"At publishing time, Mamdani had told his staff that he figured out how to make his face look sad by remembering how he felt when he heard that Osama bin Laden had been killed."
Automated license plate readers require scrutiny—and due process
A response to Charles Fain Lehman’s “In Defense of Flock” article. *
"The warrant requirements it imposes would not meaningfully inhibit investigations either, as similar standards already apply to searches of homes and cellphones."
"Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) have spread to thousands of American communities faster than almost any policing technology in memory. Flock Safety, one among many ALPR vendors, now operates approximately 120,000 cameras nationwide.
"Stories of misuse and abuse abound, including warrantless searches of movement histories, informal ICE access to camera networks despite state laws forbidding it, a Kansas police chief who used the system to stalk his ex-girlfriend, and a driver held at gunpoint because a reader misread her plate. Such stories would make any libertarian squeamish, though public backlash against the technology extends well beyond libertarian circles.
"But what is the argument in favor of ALPRs? Writing in The Atlantic, the Manhattan Institute’s Charles Fain Lehman makes an ostensibly measured case in defense of Flock. He argues that ALPRs will help solve more crimes and thereby reduce crime by incapacitating and deterring criminals. Indeed, Lehman himself has compiled an impressive database of cases where ALPRs were used to help solve crimes.
"Lehman doesn’t deny the privacy costs, though. He acknowledges documented abuses, and he appears to take privacy concerns seriously, conceding that a database of billions of vehicle images might be considered a major privacy intrusion (Flock’s ALPRs are currently generating about 20 billion license plate scans per month). His conclusion is that ALPRs are “likely a valuable tool” and that these concerns are real but manageable through “smart regulation, not bans.”
"He’s right that an outright ban on ALPRs would be both unworkable and unnecessary. And solving more crimes is indeed a good way to increase deterrence. But his argument relies on evidence that is considerably weaker than he presents. More importantly, though, his proposal for “smart regulation” stops short of the one thing that would actually address the privacy concerns he concedes are legitimate: treating ALPR database queries like any other police search and requiring a warrant.
The research is more mixed than Lehman lets on
"He’s right that an outright ban on ALPRs would be both unworkable and unnecessary. And solving more crimes is indeed a good way to increase deterrence. But his argument relies on evidence that is considerably weaker than he presents. More importantly, though, his proposal for “smart regulation” stops short of the one thing that would actually address the privacy concerns he concedes are legitimate: treating ALPR database queries like any other police search and requiring a warrant.
Lehman’s case that ALPRs are “probably” a valuable tool rests on evidence that he concedes is thin. Here’s how he characterizes the current state of research on ALPRs: . . . More.
is the director of criminal justice policy at Reason Foundation.
*Charles Fain Lehman, a legal policy fellow and director of Cities at the Manhattan Institute, published “In Defense of Flock” in The Atlantic on August 10, 2026, arguing that automated license plate readers (ALPRs) — particularly those deployed by Flock Safety — can make the criminal justice system fairer and less punitive if properly used
*Charles Fain Lehman’s “In Defense of Flock” article." - Outline Core Argument
Lehman contends that ALPRs, which photograph and identify license plates in real time, can:
Solve more crimes by enabling rapid identification of suspects and tracking of vehicles.
Deter criminal activity by making it harder for offenders to move undetected.
Reduce reliance on punitive measures by helping law enforcement target crimes more efficiently.
David Ellison Sees the Writing on the Wall for Hollywood
David Ellison’s Paramount-Warner Bros studio can’t get out of Hollywood fast enough.
 |
| New chat |
"A Pompeii resident looking out his window at Mount Vesuvius on August 24, A.D. 79 would have noticed something was amiss from the black smoke emanating out the top. He might have fled the city before it got destroyed, salvaging what he could. Movie mogul David Ellison has been observing the virtual darkness menacing Hollywood, and is taking steps to rebuild elsewhere.
"Entertainment industry luminaries are going berserk over the looming Ellison merger of Paramount and Warner Bros studios. As usual with them, for all the wrong reasons. They warn about the resultant reduced production, fewer jobs, less competition (four major studios instead of five), and that Ellison may move the entire conglomerate out of Los Angeles. Which some astute insiders see as a good thing, given what the recent studio regimes and political leaders have done to the physical location and its workers.
"'If Paramount — Warner Bros. leaves L.A., it’ll be game over for Hollywood,” declared TV-film director Joseph Kahn in a scorching Hollywood Reporter column last week. When you’ve lost The Hollywood Reporter, you should know the end is nigh. But because you’re in the entertainment industry, you probably can’t read the signs, since you understand nothing outside your business.
"In fact, you don’t understand your business, or you wouldn’t have spent the last twenty years helping to wreck it. You’re likely a diversity hire replacement for men who knew the tenuous link between the economics, politics, and art of the trade. And you can do nothing other than rage and ruin until your own job disappears.
“The writers and actors warning you about consolidation do not live in the world,” wrote Kahn. “If they did, they would understand that nobody spends $110 billion to make less of anything. Corporations don’t merge to shrink. They merge to shove product into every screen, format, territory, and Botox hole available.” . . .
Clancy defense attorney Reddington should be 'disbarred' after mistrial: Joe Concha
If you liked the Hamas massacre of Israelis that day, would you like what Clancy did?
"Clancy remains committed to a mental health institution."
 |
| Broc Smith |
"Washington Examiner columnist Joe Concha said the defense attorney in the Lindsay Clancy trial, Kevin Reddington, should be “disbarred.”
“At one point, supporters went up to Kevin Reddington and said, ‘Where can I buy you a steak dinner?’” Concha said on Fox News’s The Big Weekend Show on Saturday. “As if there is something to celebrate here. What an absolute joke. He should be disbarred, I’ll say it.”
The weekslong trial, followed by seven days of deliberation, ultimately resulted in a mistrial. The ruling came after an 11-1 verdict, with one single holdout. A note passed by the jury foreperson was read in court, stating that one juror wasn’t applying the legal burden of “reasonable doubt” to his decision. Following the mistrial, Reddington blasted the juror during a news conference.
“[The jurors] know that they were robbed,” Reddington said. “By one who, for whatever his agenda was, stole seven weeks of the lives of these other jurors. You can see how defeated they were sitting there.”
“Hm, Siri, what’s grandstanding?” Concha said.
Prosecutors now must choose where to proceed with a retrial, bench trial, a plea deal, or full-out dismissal. Concha said it would be extremely difficult to find an impartial jury, given the insurmountable amount of media coverage. Social media has also seen an influx of people commenting on the trial, both against and in support of Clancy.
“How can you possibly, given all the media attention around this and given how prevalent social media is on our phones and in our lives in general, how can another trial possibly find an unbiased jury at this point?” Concha said, directing the question to Susan Constantine, a jury consultant. " . . .
Lindsay Clancy and America’s Death Culture | The American Spectator
. . . "But if the horror and details of the Clancy case do nothing else? One suspects, like the slow-motion attention paid to American involvement in Vietnam so many decades ago, more and more Americans — for reasons good, bad, or indifferent — will slowly come to realize that whether the immediate issue is abortion or euthanasia or something else, America has a problem. And once understood, the political question will be what to do about it. And will this “death culture” become a hot-button election issue?" . . .More...
Jobs report 'better than expected'
"Bureaucracies accomplish nothing so efficiently as perpetuating and growing themselves."
Mike McDaniel "If one were to give the Democrat propaganda media credit for accuracy and honesty, one would believe the economic sky was falling. By their lights, we’re in worse economic shape than we were during the Great Depression. Nothing is affordable, and there are no jobs, which is apparently why it’s vital to keep every illegal immigrant in America and to import tens of millions more. They’ll do the non-existent jobs Americans, who have no jobs, won’t do.
Economists and other “experts” routinely predict economic gloom and doom, yet time and time again, the facts contradict them. At Powerline, Bill Glahn comments:
John noted the blowout jobs report issued yesterday. Payroll jobs up 162,000, exceeding expectations. Numbers for June and July were revised upward. The small loss for July originally announced turned out to be an actual gain. The unemployment rate remains unchanged at 4.1 percent.
If you go back for 25 years, you end up with an average unemployment rate of 5.7 percent. Since this is an election year, and Republicans are in charge, Democrats and the legacy media, but I repeat myself, insist that the economy is worse than the darkest days of the Great Depression, with Dust-Bowl weather and plagues of locusts.
Glahn is referring to this Bureau of Labor Statistics report, which is nothing but good news. Some sources are admitting the numbers are better than expected:
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in food services and drinking places and in local government education. The information industry lost jobs. . . .
Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, lifelong athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer, and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
What’s in a Name – Trump Style
"After years of insisting that names are fluid, the left suddenly discovers tradition when Trump picks the name."
Brian C. Joondeph - American Thinker
"Descriptions changed, too. Women became “birthing people” or “persons who menstruate.” Breast-feeding became “chest-feeding.” Abortion became “reproductive health.” Murdering your three children became “hormones.'”
"In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, a forlorn Juliet implores Romeo to give up his family name, that of a family rival to hers. She asks him, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
The same could be said about large bodies of water, still wet and deep regardless of what President Donald Trump names them by executive order.
Most recently, Trump renamed Lake Ontario to Lake America, after renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America last year.
These name changes will be insignificant footnotes in world history, unlike, say, the Louisiana Purchase or America’s purchase of Alaska from Russia.
Yet Democrats and others on the left are acting as if America invaded and conquered Canada.
The New York Times solemnly bemoaned, “Lake Ontario didn’t ask for this.” The Washington Post warned, “Trump’s push to rename Lake Ontario raises a troubling question.”
Such angst.
First of all, lakes don’t talk and don’t pick their names. Or their genders.
Back in 2015, when President Obama renamed Mount McKinley to Denali, all the New York Times had to say was, “Mount McKinley to be renamed Denali.” . . .More...
Baghdad NYT; “A More Confident Iran Emerges After Six Months of War With the U.S.”
"The days of NYT and the rest serving as a fifth column in America are over as well.And the days of the Iranian regime are near their end no matter what its propagandists in the media would have you believe."
“Let the message to the IRGC be clear: If you shoot at two of our ships, we will impose an even higher economic cost —taking out three of yours. We will not hesitate to defend American forces, and if necessary, destroy Iran’s limited and exposed oil fleet.” — Adm. Brad Cooper,… pic.twitter.com/UGGcSGsUtd
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) September 5, 2026
"Fact-check: Well, yes if you consider they now realize their capabilities are nada, non-existent, zilch. The Persian Army has more power and it disappeared in a sandstorm west of Thebes 2,551 years ago.
"Readers don’t need me to toddle down memory trail enjoying Iran’s sunken navy and its air force that is headed for the aluminum can recycling machine.
Israel destroyed Iran’s underground military base beneath Gaza City a few years ago. The press calls Hamas a terrorist group but Iran funds and runs it.
"The same with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Last week, the Jerusalem Post reported:
The IDF announced on Thursday that it had completed the clearance of two Hezbollah underground infrastructures on the Ali al-Taher ridge in southern Lebanon and that forces are now working to neutralize them.
According to the military, the infrastructures were built over a period of about two decades and were planned and funded by Iran.
Forces from the IDF’s 36th Division have operated in the area in recent weeks and, according to the military, achieved operational control of the ridge both above and below ground. During the operation, the area was cleared of Hezbollah operatives who had been stationed there, with some killed and others fleeing.
Inside the underground infrastructure, the forces found command rooms, weapons storage rooms, generators, living quarters, showers, and a kitchen. The IDF said the complex allowed Hezbollah operatives to remain underground for extended periods and conduct combat operations from there.
 |
| Toon added by TD |
"So now we know the Iranian Army’s capabilities—running through the briars where the rabbits wouldn’t go." . . . More
Sunday, September 6, 2026
Clancy: Who did the right thing? "The Holdout Juror Did What the Law Asked"
Lindsay Clancy Jury look like it's 11 Not Guilty - 1 Guilty
"The defense does not dispute that Clancy killed the children. Instead, Reddington argues that postpartum psychosis and the effects of medication left her unable to understand the wrongfulness of her actions.
Prosecutors have taken the opposite position. They contend that Clancy planned the killings, sent her husband out of the house, and knew right from wrong.
The deadlock is not over whether the children died at their mother’s hands. It is over whether Clancy was criminally responsible at the time and, if so, which offense the evidence proves."
 |
| JURIST |
"In the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, one man saved the proceeding from becoming a sentiment parade. The lone holdout juror stood alone against eleven others and refused to surrender his judgment. That is not stubbornness. That is courage. He was honest when honesty cost him the goodwill of the room. He displayed what strength, honor, and justice look like when they are no longer theoretical. A lesser person would have folded. He did not.
"Eleven jurors appear to have been ready to acquit. On August 20 I wrote that jury nullification driven by compassion would be understandable human emotion, and that it would not be justice. This juror refused that bargain. He applied the test Massachusetts actually uses: whether Clancy retained substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her acts or to conform her conduct to the law. Illness is not that test. The afternoon of January 24, 2023, is. For that fidelity, he deserves public gratitude, not a target on his back.
Kevin Reddington then did something reckless and ugly. He stepped outside the courthouse and marked that juror for public contempt. He called him “one man” who, “for whatever his agenda was,” had “robbed” the other jurors and “stolen seven weeks.” He thanked the jury “minus one.” He accused the holdout of refusing the law and of lying under oath. That was not advocacy. It was a public branding of a private citizen who had done his duty. In today’s assassination culture, those words are not a flourish. They are a hazard. Reddington knew the case was raw, watched, and emotionally charged. He named the holdout as the obstacle anyway. In my view, he also sent a message to the next panel: return the verdict he wants, or he will put your life in jeopardy the same way. If that juror is harmed because of what Reddington did today, the blame would, in my view, rest largely if not entirely with him.
Reddington’s sense of injury is grotesque. He howled about seven weeks. He has never spoken with anything close to that volume about the three lives his client took: Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months. Those children were strangled with exercise bands in a basement after she timed her husband’s absence. That is the crime. Seven weeks of trial are not. A lawyer who treats a holdout juror as a thief, and three murdered children as a secondary theme, has shown the public exactly whose losses move him.
Asked whether he would prefer a bench trial if he had the option on retrial, Reddington said no. In my view, that answer is telling. He knows the law is not on his side. A judge trained to apply it would be far less likely to give him the result he expects from a future jury—one that, by ordinary statistics, will not be made up of legal experts. He wants another panel he can work. He does not want a finder of fact who will simply enforce the standard.
The holdout juror already enforced it. Because he would not abandon the legal test, the Commonwealth still has a chance to seek a just verdict for the strangulation murders of those three children. That juror did the hard thing. Reddington did the cheap thing. The difference is the entire case." -- Joseph Fosco
Ayaan Hirsi Ali EXPOSES The Truth About Islam (UPDATED)
Ayaan Hirsi Ali EXPOSES The Truth About Islam
"In my opinion, Islamic reform means to stop the killings, and stop trying to convert everyone to your own personal beliefs. Stop marrying children. Stop raping people. Stop torturing people. Stop dismembering people. Stop the violence. Respect and honor your neighbors. Keep your religious beliefs somewhat more of a personal nature. Learn the differences between giving and taking. Stop greed." These things are quite simple, and very humanely accessible."
"Who is the moderator to question whether she is the person to address this issue? She left the faith BECAUSE of this issue! No one is closer to it than her. The moderator isn’t moderating; she is sitting in judgement particularly by asking the other woman to agree with her. Shame on the moderator!! "
The Questions We Must Ask About Islam . . . "Hamid saw early on the cancer of oikophobia, a term Roger Scruton defines as “the repudiation of inheritance and home.” Hamid loves his home and will not tolerate it being polluted by horrific doctrines and squalid actions. He challenges us to combat our own timidity and oikophobia, stand tall on the principles of our civilization, and to ask some direct and searching questions of those who have not clarified what they mean when they invoke Islam. He asks us not to be afraid of those who bully the conversation by dismissing even the most fair-minded criticism with the cry of Islamophobia.
"Hamid here proposes a list of clarifying questions to help us determine whether the version of Islam being invoked by its proponents is worthy of our support or our opposition. What is at stake is nothing short of our civilization with its aspiration to ordered freedom in which all find strength and inspiration in their religion to build a peaceful and abundant world. We can and must discern which values are in tune with the best that civilization aspires to, and those whose atavism and depravity should be evident and draw condemnation from Muslim, Jew, and Christian — and any civilized person — alike.
"Here is the list in Hamid’s own clear and concise words: . . ." Full article here...
In this same vein: 9/11 Families Plan to Ignore Mamdani at Ceremony | Newsmax.com
Saturday, September 5, 2026
Lawlessness Is a Choice
Miranda Devine - Imprimis -Oct 2025
"The intense blowback against Trump’s efforts to restore law and order rams home the point that it is a deliberate choice by progressives to preserve lawlessness in their cities. When you think about it, the strategy seems to have paid off, if all you care about is power, since progressives have a generational stranglehold on the cities with the worst crime."
"While being interviewed on a recent podcast, Texas Democrat Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett decided to opine on crime, a topic on which she apparently considers herself to be an expert. Her nutty conclusion was this: “Just because someone has committed a crime, it doesn’t make them a criminal.”
"I can see how this logic would have a wide range of uses for politicians: “Just because someone told a lie, it doesn’t make them a liar”; “Just because someone took a bribe, it doesn’t make them corrupt.” It’s a bit like the thought experiment: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” If a crime is committed and no one is responsible, was there actually a crime at all?
"Of course, it’s nonsense. A criminal is defined precisely as a person who has committed a crime. But when Crockett chooses her own definitions, she is simply echoing a progressive shibboleth that has turned blue cities across the country into lawless hellholes. It holds that people who commit crimes have no agency—that they are helpless victims of circumstance. Therefore, any attempt to hold them accountable by arresting them or putting them in jail is unjust—it further victimizes them.
""The obvious result of this logic is that criminals are emboldened and their real victims become helpless hostages to lawlessness.
"It is a short step from Crockett’s logic to the justification of defunding the police as a way to “make communities safer.” That communities become safer by having fewer police is, of course, a lie, but defunding police is what progressives have been doing since the anti-cop, BLM-Antifa riots of the “Summer of Love” in 2020.
"As a former police reporter, I’ve seen how soft-on-crime policies hurt the very people progressives pretend to care about. It’s precisely the most vulnerable in our big cities who need the most policing and have the least resources to protect themselves from mayhem.
"Living in New York City off and on over the past three decades, including in the pre-Mayor Rudy Giuliani era when it was a dystopian hellscape of crime and no-go zones, it’s striking how quickly soft-on-crime policies at the state and local level destroy your day-to-day sense of safety. Progressive criminal justice “reforms,” such as defunding the police, ending cash bail, refusing to prosecute misdemeanors, letting thousands of convicted felons out of prison early, and slashing the prison population, are the most obvious contributors to the escalating violent crime problem in blue cities.
"In 2014, Bill de Blasio was elected Mayor of what he boasted was “the safest big city in America.” He championed all sorts of progressive policies, from bail reform to decriminalizing offenses such as public urination and marijuana possession—and eventually the New York City Council defunded the NYPD to the tune of $1 billion.
"As predicted by everybody with any understanding of human nature, it did not take long for the city to become scary." . . . More...
Why socialism doesn’t work; Tyranny is not an accidental by-product of Socialism; it lies at its very core.
"Free markets drive innovation through competition and entrepreneurship. Under socialism, state-run industries lack incentives to improve, leading to technological and economic stagnation.
Toon added by TD
"Socialism, when implemented as a political and economic system, has historically led to tyranny and persecution for several reasons:
"Socialism typically abolishes or severely restricts private property. Without private ownership and the ability to reap personal rewards from effort and innovation, productivity declines, and economic stagnation follows.
"Government-controlled economies lack the flexibility and efficiency of market-driven ones. Central planners cannot account for the complexity of supply and demand, leading to shortages, waste, and inefficiency.
"Socialism often requires government control over many aspects of life, including employment, wages, production, and even personal choices. This erodes individual freedoms and forces conformity to state dictates.
"When the state controls the economy, political elites gain enormous power over resources and wealth. This leads to corruption, as those in power use their position to enrich themselves while suppressing dissent.
"Because socialism requires force to implement and maintain, it frequently leads to political repression. Those who oppose the government’s policies, whether intellectuals, business owners, or ordinary citizens, are often persecuted, imprisoned, or silenced. They are even sometimes killed.
"Socialist policies tend to create economic stagnation, as seen in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Venezuela, and other examples. Without competition or incentives, innovation slows, industries collapse, and poverty spreads.
"Socialism thrives on class struggle, pitting groups against each other (e.g. workers vs. bosses). This fosters resentment and division, leading to societal instability and often violent crackdowns by the state.
"In extreme cases, socialist regimes have led to mass starvation (e.g. the Holodomor in Ukraine, Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution) as government policies disrupt food production and distribution. Human rights abuses, including forced labour camps and mass executions, have been common in socialist states.
"Free markets drive innovation through competition and entrepreneurship. Under socialism, state-run industries lack incentives to improve, leading to technological and economic stagnation.
"Because Socialism requires extensive government control, it naturally expands state power at the expense of individual rights. This often results in authoritarian rule, as seen in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.
"Historically, socialist experiments have resulted in oppression and economic ruin rather than prosperity and freedom. Its supporters say these countries never practised Socialism, but they said they did and thought they did and did what they did in its name. Whatever the theory of Socialism might say, it killed 100 million people and ruined the lives of many more.
"Tyranny is not an accidental by-product of Socialism; it lies at its very core. It is in its DNA."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)