Sammanbrottet

 

Men vad *har* Aftonbladets ledarsida spetsat jordgubbarna med? Den här artikeln är antingen önsketänkande, ett resultat av noll koll, eller en medveten provokation. Tucker Carlson är högerradikal isolationist och rysstillgång. Det är *därför* han agerar som han gör. Det finns inget mysterium här.

Plötsligt verkar Trumps MAGA-supportrar tvivla

Och här kommer sanningen...

Kriget mot Iran blir MAGA-rörelsens undergång

Wut?

 

OK, it´s official now. Trump is *clinically* insane...

President Trump urges permanent Daylight Savings Time 

The sixth continent

 

How on earth is this supposed to be implemented? A bit like banning TV for everyone under 16. And why is this suddenly a thing at all, after all these years with carefree axxess to social media for all and sundry? The mental health crisis? Nah, it´s probably a "trial balloon" for something else: a blanket ban on social media for everyone. You know, "misinformation" and all that...

From the article:

>>>On the other hand, a coalition of over 140 international groups sent Albanese an open letter last month arguing that a total ban would be “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.”

>>>Among other objections, the group argued that implementing a ban effectively would be a “challenge,” and it would make social media even riskier for young people who manage to evade the ban, because platforms would have no incentive to provide child safety features any longer.

>>>“The online world is a place where children and young people access information, build social and technical skills, connect with family and friends, learn about the world around them and relax and play. These opportunities are important for children, advancing children’s rights and strengthening development and the transition to adulthood,” the letter said.

>>>The Digital Industry Group (DIGI), a coalition that includes X, Google, and Facebook’s parent company Meta, said the Australian ban would only encourage children to delve deeper into the forbidden recesses of the Internet.

>>>“Keeping young people safe online is a top priority … but the proposed ban for teenagers to access digital platforms is a 20th Century response to 21st Century challenges,” said DIGI Managing Director Sunity Bose.

>>>“Rather than blocking access through bans, we need to take a balanced approach to create age-appropriate spaces, build digital literacy and protect young people from online harm,” she said. 

Australia proposes "world leading" ban on social media for children under 16

No more quiet nights

"Independence Day: Resurgence" is a 2016 sequel to the classic "Independence Day" from 1996. Since the spectacular original already exists, "Resurgence" simply doesn´t have that future classic vibe. But sure, if you liked ID4, you will probably like this one, too. For starters, we get to see more of the aliens, their starships and their social structure. The crazy hippy scientist is back, and so is "the old Jewish dad". The UFO cultists are notable by their absence, though, but then, they got fried already in the first flick! A new race of aliens is introduced, which unsurprisingly turns out to be "virtual" (as in sentient super-computers of the globular kind). The weakest part of "Resurgence" are the new human characters. And yes, there seem to be some loans from "Starship Troopers"... 

A weird fact: in ID4, fictitious and clean-shaven president Whitmore says "We will not go quietly into the night". Whitmore also plays an important part in "Resurgence", where he is bearded. Now, I seem to recall that Senator Ted Cruz used those exact words at the pro-Trump rally before the faux insurrection at the Capitol in 2021. At the time, Cruz had a beard, and hence looked pretty much like Whitmore! A co-incidence? Or was the senator from Texas consciously mimicking an actor from this film?

"Independence Day: Resurgence" ends with humanity gaining knowledge about the homeworld of the Harversters, as the evil aliens are called, and it´s implied that Homo sapiens (sapiens) will one day take the struggle there, to wipe out the oversized bugs once and for all. Perhaps in 2036, we will thus see the closure of this syfy extravaganza? 

We certainly won´t go quietly into the night...

Faucism in action

 

More on the Biden administrations censorship of social media. This is a "far right" comment, featuring controversial Texas senator Ted Cruz. I´ve previously linked to leftist and libertarian takes. 

Endgame?

This lawsuit, brought by the State of Texas, could be "the beginning of the end" of the post-election fight in the US. Unless QAnon is right and Michael Flynn has the Dominion software proving Charlie did it.

The significance of this lawsuit seems to be that it indicates support for Trump from a section of the Republican apparatus. Which raises all kinds of questions about what will happen to the GOP if it fails. Or even if it succeeds...

Apparently, Ted Cruz has offered to argue the case before SCOTUS. Obviously an attempt to promote himself as a 2024 primary challenger...or the next SCOTUS pick. 

Trump obviously needs the support of the GOP apparat to stay in power (unless you think or hope that he will actually stage a Tonkin incident in Philly and call out cloned imperial stormtroopers from a hideout in Area 51). What could possibly make the GOP-e support Trump? Either a rotten deal about a new war in the Middle East, or fear that a Biden administration will pack SCOTUS and the Senate with liberals, thereby breaking whatever power the establishmentistas may still have.

The Texas challenge is part of scenario number two. 

Texas challenges election directly at Supreme Court

Russian samovar

Excellent if you like your covfefe plain or with milk & sugar. Works even in a Russian samovar. For good or for worse, no decaf version exists. Well, actually it does. I believe the decaf version of 100% Perfect Donald Blend is known as "Ted Cruz". But sure, I could be out on a limb here...

Question Number Ten

Who is Ted Cruz? Until recently, I was busy keeping track of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, so that question was low on my list of priorities. However, when Cruz finally decided to endorse Trump the other day, I decided to download this e-book by J I Mason, whose exact identity is never revealed. As another reviewer has already pointed out, “Ted Cruz: The Candidates 2016” could have needed a better editor, but if you manage to read through it (I did so in one sitting), it may give you some insights into the man and his politics. Or at least the man, since his politics are mentioned mostly in passing!

The book speaks for itself, but some things stand out and seem to be relevant for Cruz' conduct during the primaries. Already as a teenager and young adult, Cruz had the reputation for being extremely ambitious and cocky, a brilliant and crafty debater, and an inflexible free market/minimal government conservative. He was intelligent and loved by his tutors at Harvard and elsewhere (one of his teachers was liberal Alan Dershowitz!), but in his chosen careers of politics and law, he was intensely disliked by many. Cruz has a peculiar combination of ideological inflexibility and a lawyer-like tendency to “prove” whatever he wishes to prove this week (compare Dershowitz again). Mason exposits in some detail on the legal cases Cruz took on as solicitor-general of Texas or as a privately practicing lawyer. Cruz' conduct in the US Senate during the “federal shutdown” crisis is perhaps the low point of his career, and not without its frankly bizarre moments. And then, maybe not, since Cruz eventually became the only serious challenger to Donald Trump in the recent GOP primaries! Clearly, *somebody* likes Ted Cruz…

Cruz realized that the Tea Party movement had a substantial portion of the conservative Republican grassroots behind them, and acted accordingly. His inflexible ideological stances (“defense of the Constitution”), attacks on both Democrats and establishment Republicans in Congress, and strong religious faith soon made him popular on the plebeian right. His cocky lobbying of establishment figures and rich donors (including one George Bush Sr.) secured his position. Cruz' well-heeled and well-connected wife Heidi Cruz also contributed. He was an “outsider” and member of the “Kamikaze caucus” in Congress, and yet nevertheless an establishment hanger-on. It's obvious that he doesn't have the support of “the people” (as opposed to the Tea Party). Cruz won the Texan primaries for the Senate by relying on crafty maneuvering, and the voter turnout was only 8%. The book cuts off the story immediately before the recent presidential primaries, but it's intriguing to note that Rafael Edward Cruz (Ted's real name) argued already as a teenager that he could run for president despite being born in Canada!

His conduct during the Republican primaries seems to have been “vintage Cruz”. All the elements are there: the boundless self-confidence and ambition (running for the presidency at the age of 45), the lawyer-like maneuvering in place of real popular support (caucuses and bickering over delegates), the dogmatic inflexibility (his refusal to endorse Trump at the RNC) but also the ability to mobilize the support and devotion of the conservative grass root element. It's interesting to note that his recent endorsement of Trump is strongly ideological in character, but also that it comes shortly after RNC chair Reince Priebus threatened to stop everyone who doesn't support Trump from running in future primary elections. Both ideological conviction and personal ambition may have played a role in the endorsement. Another interesting fact is that, according to Mason, many suspect that Cruz' real ambition is to become Supreme Court judge, a suspicion which has resurfaced again after the Trump endorsement. Indeed, a place on SCOTUS would be the crowning achievement of an ambitious former Supreme Court clerk who worships the Constitution. If Trump (or anybody else) wants to endure Cruz for the next 40 years or so, may be another matter entirely…

One thing is certain. We probably haven't seen the last of Rafael Edward Cruz. For good or for worse.

Cruising for a bruising

“For God and Country” is a collection of speeches by Ted Cruz, the Texan senator and presidential candidate who controversially refused to endorse Donald Trump after losing the Republican primaries, and even more controversially *did* endorse Trump just the other day. The collection is badly edited, no publisher is given, no date is given for the speeches, and the video features don't work on my Kindle. Thus, I couldn't amuse myself by listening to Cruz reading the bedtime story “Green Eggs and Ham” for his daughters during his infamous filibuster against Obamacare. Indeed, over half of the e-book contains Cruz' filibuster, suggesting either that Cruz is a narcissist (if his campaign is behind this pamphlet) or that said campaign *isn't* responsible for the pamphlet, after all. The fact that an anti-Cruz advertisement inexplicably shows up in the middle of the e-book suggests the latter (or perhaps that pro-Cruz Super PACs have an exotic sense of humor).

I can't help quoting two other short passages from the filibuster speech.

“So my dad learned to flip pancakes. Let me tell you, as a kid on Saturday or Sunday morning and your dad is making pancakes, it is very cool when he can flip them--you could make him flip them high in the air and catch them. But he could do that. I will credit my father; he invented--this wasn't for the restaurant, but he did it anyway--he invented green eggs and ham. He did it two ways. No. 1, the easy way, is he put green food coloring in the eggs, chopped up ham in it. `Green Eggs and Ham' was my favorite book when I was a boy. The food coloring is a little bit cheating, but if you take some spinach and mix it into the eggs, the eggs turn green.” (Kindle Locations 1196-1203)

“I wanted to make an embarrassing admission first. For many years, when I was in private practice and when I was solicitor general, I wore a particular pair of boots, my argument boots. They were black ostrich boots. Litigators are kind of superstitious, so anytime I went into court to argue a case I wore my argument boots. I had them resoled four or five times. When I had the great honor of serving in this body, of being sworn into the Senate, when I was sworn in standing on the steps just in front of us, I wore my argument boots. I have worn them every day since. I don't believe there has been a day on this Senate floor that I haven't worn my argument boots.” (Kindle Locations 1501-1508).

I always wondered how a filibuster speech sounded like. I learned something new today! Thank you, Ted.

On a more serious note, I wondered when reading the other speeches why Cruz didn't endorse Trump at the RNC. On point after point, the policy positions of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are identical: immigration reform, “shock and awe”-type air strikes against ISIS, opposition to any deals with Iran, repeal of Obamacare, a more “nationalist” trade policy, criticism of “nation-building”, calls for less regulations and lower taxes, and attempts to bring out the conservative Christian vote. The only difference is that Trump wants peace with Russia, while Cruz takes a more confrontational stance – but Trump, too, originally took the same position (for instance in his book “Crippled America”). So what is the *real* difference between Donald J Trump and Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz? Is it simply a matter of personality or ego (both men have considerable quantities of the latter merchandize at their disposal)? Or is it something else?

Perhaps Cruz suspects that Trump isn't a genuine conservative. He is probably right on that score. The Donald is more likely to be a Caesar or Bonaparte than a strict constitutionalist. Or perhaps it's Cruz who is the phony. After all, the GOP establishment tried to use him to stop Trump, not the other way around! Perhaps the old party elite knows that the Tea Party (which endorsed Cruz) is a spent force, while the new movement around Trump is seen as more threatening, especially so since the real estate tycoon isn't dependent on outside funding. Thus, the old guard could “use the Cruz”, perhaps to broker a convention, while Trump was impervious to their advances.

Still, Cruz probably had to endorse the official nominee, sooner or later. While Trump may not be a real conservative, or even a real Republican, he *does* make a tolerably good imitation of one (when he isn't busy selling his moonshine populism), while Hillary Clinton is visibly opposed to just about anything the Tea Party (or even Glenn Beck) ever stood for. Also, Cruzbots and Trumpistas are close in some states. Finally, Ted Cruz may not have much choice, as most of the Republican establishment has decided to jump on the Trump Train (or bandwagon) before it's too late…

The sequel to “For God and Country” may prove interesting.

Oh, and Kobani is in Syria, not Iraq.

A constitutional loophole for the Grinch

The Supreme Court hasn't banned public institutions from putting up Christmas trees, with the argument that they are "secular" and hence constitutional. But what if the Christmas tree is topped by a star? That's the Star of Bethlehem, after all. That's religious, right? Does this mean that the radical-liberal Grinch can vandalize all publicly funded Christmas trees in MAGA...?

If Ted Cruz ever gets appointed to SCOTUS, I'm sure he'll find a solution. Until then, watch out for the green guy in a Santa costume!

Probably part of some conspiracy

This will probably be the last ARVG e-book I'll be reviewing. I'm still not sure whether the author is a troll, a slightly confused elderly gentleman or a MIB working for some lowly psy-op department of the Vast Intelligence Community. Nor do I understand who he is trolling! Me? You? Rogue customer reviewers in general? At one point, the author says he wants to avoid getting negative reviews on Amazon, so he is certainly checking this space for reactions!

My reactions to “Remote Viewing Conspiracy Theories” are mostly negative. It does have a psy-op feeling about it (perhaps we could call it an “aura”, to make the whole thing sound more mysterious). The purported Annapolis Remote Viewing Group debunks most popular conspiracy theories, from 9/11 to the Jesus bloodline, while simultaneously supporting even more ridiculous “alternative” notions.

There are intelligent reptoids living in caverns underground, which occasionally come to the surface to kill and eat humans. There is a secret human presence beyond Pluto. Elvis was an alien and was beamed onboard the mothership shortly after his “death”. The Holocaust did happen, but continued well into 1946 and had a total death toll of 11 million people?! The authors of this e-book are aliens, and confer with government representatives at Area 51 on a semi-regular basis. Ted Cruz' father was involved in the JFK assassination, together with LBJ. And yes, there is something special about Donald Trump's hair…

Ooookay.

Disinformation, mucho? Only two stars!

This review may contain North Korean state secrets

This is apparently an Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU), a close relative to the Darwinist Fish With Legs, the Happy Holiday greeting and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that it's neither invisible, pink nor an unicorn is presumably part of the "in house joke". Ted Cruz (of all people) recently said that searching for moderate rebels in Syria is like searching for a purple unicorn. Cruz (who believes Jonah was swallowed by a big basking shark) apparently doesn't believe purple unicorns exist. Unfortunately for both Cruz and his Atheist-Materialist detractors, unicorns *do* exist. And we all know where, don't we...? Yepp, you guessed it: at a private wildlife preserve in Congo-Brazzaville, owned by Kim Jong-un. Sheesh, I assumed that was common knowledge!