Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

House Democrats Want Biden To Relinquish Sole Authority To Launch Nuclear Weapons

Dozens of House Democrats are calling on President Biden to relinquish sole control over the country’s nuclear arsenal and the ability to launch a strike using those weapons.

Politico reports that the Democrats, led by Rep. Jimmy Panetta (CA) and Rep. Ted Lieu (CA), wrote a letter warning that “vesting one person” with the authority to initiate a nuclear war “entails real risks.”

“While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering a nuclear attack, there is no requirement to do so,” the letter explains.

“The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war,” they add. “Under the current posture of U.S. nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.”

Keep reading

Democrats’ H.R. 1 Sets ‘Unconstitutional’ Limits on 1st Amendment: Free Speech Group

“Buried in H.R. 1’s nearly 800 pages is a censor’s wish list of new burdens on speech and donor privacy. It proposes a democracy where civic engagement is punished and where fewer people have a voice in our government, our laws, and public life,” Eric Wang, the author of the study, said in a statement accompanying the release of the analysis. He is an IFS senior fellow and special counsel in the election law practice group at the Washington law firm of Wiley Rein, LLP.

Among the 14 constitutional problems identified by the IFS analysis in H.R. 1’s Title IV—including especially subtitles B, C, and D—the first are provisions that “unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a vague, subjective, and dangerously broad standard that asks whether the speech ‘promotes,’ ‘attacks,’ ‘supports,’ or ‘opposes’ (PASO) the candidate or official.”

“This standard is impossible to understand and would likely regulate any mention of an elected official who hasn’t announced their retirement.”

The proposal does that by creating a new category of regulated speech called “campaign-related disbursements” by nonprofit advocacy groups and others interested in communicating about public policy issues.

Such speech would include any public communications that mention a specific candidate for federal office and attacks or supports that candidate “without regard to whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against” the candidate.

Keep reading

Obama: ‘White Resistance and Resentment’ Prevented Reparations Push

Former President Barack Obama says that “the politics of White resistance and resentment” kept him from pushing for financial reparations for Black Americans while he was in office.

In the second episode of his podcast with Bruce Springsteen, “Renegades: Born in the USA,” released on Monday, Obama said that he thinks reparations are “justified,” despite having opposed it during the 2008 election.

Obama said, “there’s not much question that the wealth … the power of this country was built in significant part — not exclusively, maybe not even the majority of it, but a large portion of it — was built on the backs of slaves.”

He added that a proposal for reparations failed during his presidency because of “the politics of White resistance and resentment.” 

The former president said, “And what I saw during my presidency was the politics of White resistance and resentment. The talk of ‘welfare queens’ and the talk of the ‘undeserving’ poor. And the backlash against affirmative action.”

Keep reading

Buffalo Public Schools ‘Forces Kindergarteners to Watch Video’ of ‘Dead’ Black Children ‘Warning Them About Racist Police’

In a Twitter thread that begins with “I’ve obtained whistleblower documents that will shock you,” City Journal writer Christopher Rufo “scooped” disturbing news about the indoctrination of students in the Buffalo Public Schools district — beginning in kindergarten.

SCOOP: Buffalo Public Schools claims “all white people” perpetuate systemic racism and forces kindergarteners to watch a video of dead black children warning them about “racist police and state-sanctioned violence.” I’ve obtained whistleblower documents that will shock you.

Spoiler: Rufo wasn’t kidding about the “shocked” part.

Keep reading

California School District Promotes Segregated ‘Black Parent’ Meeting

A California school district is promoting a black-only parent meeting that calls for black parents to have a larger influence on the curriculum that is taught in schools. 

The Val Verde Unified School District is promoting a seven-part black-only event for parents to share their experiences and give input into how the district should alter its curriculum. The segregated events will take place throughout the spring 2021 academic year. 

According to fliers obtained by The Daily Wire, the first meeting allowed parents to air their grievances with the school district and explain their “lived experiences.” The second meeting focused on putting those feelings into attainable goals and change. 

“After a deep dive into the feel of our community and the challenges faced within the district, it is time to evaluate and share with the Cabinet and those in positions who can actually create change tailored to your collective needs and demands,” the flyer reads. “Let’s not sugarcoat what you need or want to see change.” 

The third event told parents that their input would help the school district make changes to the curriculum and programs currently being offered. “We also desire to learn about any specific programs you believe would be most effective to your child’s academic success or potentially adjust programs currently offered,” the flyer reads.  

Keep reading

California Bill Requires ‘Gender Neutral’ Stores, Fines Retailers $1000 For Having Separate ‘Boy’ And ‘Girl’ Toy Departments

California’s Assembly is slated to consider a new bill requiring department store childrens’ sections to be largely “gender-neutral” in order to combat “prejudice” and “judgment” against gender non-conforming children.

“Large retailers that sell toys, clothes, and other children’s items in California would have to devote floor space to merchandise marketed to both boys and girls under a new bill,” Politico reported earlier this week. “Stores would be able to sell the same products they do now as long as they maintain some areas where shoppers can find all toys or clothes, regardless of gender-based marketing, under CA AB2826 (19R) from Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell). It would apply to department stores with 500 or more employees beginning in 2023.”

Lowe told Politico that the idea for the bill, which he also introduced last year to little effect, came from one of his staffers, who claims her daughter wanted an item in the “boys” section but felt slighted because she felt the toy was designated for a male child.

“This is an issue of children being able to express themselves without bias,” Lowe told the outlet.

Keep reading

Amazon quietly ends sales of books it labels ‘hate speech’

Sometime before this week, when it removed from its digital shelves a book critical of transgender ideology, Amazon altered its content policy to explicitly forbid books that promote “hate speech,” a major rule change that could be used to rationalize action against a broader range of books sold by the digital retail giant.

Amazon this week yanked “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement” from its main web store, its Kindle servers and its audiobook lineup with no explanation, even as the book had been available on the site for three years with no apparent controversy. 

In the 2018 book, author and political philosopher Ryan Anderson draws on years of scientific research and data to criticize the prevailing approach to transgender issues in modern medicine. The book “exposes the contrast between the media’s sunny depiction of gender fluidity and the often sad reality of living with gender dysphoria,” according to its sales blurb. 

Anderson told Just the News that he had received no explanation for the ban.

Reached for comment by Just the News, Amazon declined to provide any explanation, offering instead a link to its book content policy. 

A review of those policies suggests that sometime in the last few months Amazon made a major change to the ways in which it moderates book content on its servers, imposing a much stricter standard on books than it had previously done. 

The link provided by Amazon this week claims in part that, where books are concerned, the company “[doesn’t] sell certain content including content that we determine is hate speech … or other material we deem inappropriate or offensive.”

Internet archives show that as recently as August of last year, Amazon’s book content policy did not include any mention of “hate speech.” At that time, the company stated only that “we reserve the right not to sell certain content, such as pornography or other inappropriate content.”

On the older page, the company directed users to “guidelines for other categories of products,” such as products featuring “offensive and controversial material.” That policy stipulated in part that Amazon “does not allow products that promote, incite or glorify hatred,” but the rule explicitly noted that the policy did not apply to books. 

The company did not reply to a followup query asking when the policy had been changed, and why.

Keep reading