To those who keep supporting immigrants, watch as the city commission of Lake Worth Beach, FL disqualifies a candidate for City Manager because he isn’t Guatemalan and doesn’t speak Spanish.
Anti American left
Stepping on Your Johnson
Three times I voted for Trump. He was and remains a better choice than any of the three who ran against him. That being said, the Iran war clearly shows him to be stepping on his dick.
Iran is clearly prolonging the conflict until November, because their aim is obviously to influence the election. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out the Democrats are conspiring with Iran to make that happen.
Still,this is a disaster in the making for the Republicans. Fuel prices are sky high. Gasoline is averaging more than $4.30 a gallon. Inflation is high, and the Fed is expected to raise interest rates by a quarter percent today.
The nation, and perhaps the world, is about to enter a recession. Americans vote with their wallets. Republican lawmakers, sensing vulnerability to anti-Trump election pressures, are beginning to turn on him.
All of this signals a return to Democrat control of Congress. Trump is about to become a powerless lame duck.
That also means a likely stranglehold of both Congress and the Whitehouse. Imagine President AOC, but backed by Control of both the Senate and the House.
Crime
It’s Not Your Job
Here is a case of a woman who decided that, because she had a gun, she was going to chase down what she believed was a criminal and be a hero. The story goes like this:
She was a witness to a car accident, along with an off duty police officer, another witness. Hannah saw the accident and believed him to be intoxicated, according to her own statements on the phone to 911. (It actually turns out he was having a diabetic emergency) The man who caused the accident left the scene. Hannah called 911 and engaged in a vehicle pursuit.
The dispatcher, upon finding out Hannah was engaged in a vehicle pursuit, said “We actually don’t want you to chase him,” then asked her to return to the scene of the accident.
Hannah replied, “There is a police officer at the scene, but this guy is drunk, and I am not NOT going to follow him, because he is going to cause another accident.”
When she caught up to him, Hannah pulled her vehicle into the path of the man’s car, to block him from going further. She got out of her car to confront him, yelling for him to get out of the car. She is heard to say, “He was fighting with me, and he pulled the trigger on my gun.” The thing is, he was still in his pickup with his seatbelt on. She claims her finger was indexed and not on the trigger. You decide, here is a screen grab from the video:
In 2023, Hannah was convicted of felony murder, false imprisonment, and weapons charges, and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, plus 8 years and 5 years. The story would end there, a wanna be cop with a gun who decided to shoot someone over a traffic accident she wasn’t even involved in, but there is more.
The Supreme Court of Georgia weighed in on her appeal just this spring. The prosecutor in the case had used AI to write her legal briefs and motions. The case law cited by the AI was fake, either made up cases, or the cases cited didn’t say what the lawyer claimed they did. So the Supreme Court of Georgia, as they should have, ordered the conviction tossed out, and granted Hannah a new trial.
Cops
Warrants? We Don’t Need Warrants
This case is a great example of why you should never open your door to anyone you don’t intend on allowing into your home. That’s the purpose of doorbell cameras, after all. Police in Greenville, North Carolina approached a woman who had a Ring camera on her house in the belief that the camera caught video evidence of a crime. They demanded she show them the video, and she refused, claiming the camera didn’t record. There are numerous reasons for this. You can set Ring cameras to record on motion, and it’s entirely possible that the camera simply didn’t record the incident because the motion was too far away to trigger the motion sensor. Even so, I wouldn’t want cops going through my phone. So the answer from me is going to be no.
The cop replied, “Listen to me, you pull it up and show me that it isn’t working, or I will rip it off the wall, get a warrant, and I will keep you up all night.”
- First, ripping the camera off the wall won’t get you any footage. It’s an Internet camera. My cameras aren’t Ring cameras, but they don’t store any footage. Either this cop is a dumbass, or is going to destroy the camera because she can.
Listen:
So what did the cops do? They entered the home, took the woman’s phone, forcibly unlocked it, and stole the video, all without a warrant. The woman wasn’t suspected of committing a crime.
At some point, you are tempted to wonder if the officers are wearing Level IV plates, or if the plates they do happen to be wearing are capable of stopping .308 or .300 Blackout.
Look, I am not against it. I once had a thief in my neighborhood and the cops believed my cameras might have caught the thief on film. They contacted me while I was on vacation in Colorado and ASKED me for footage. they were a bit panicked because they were afraid the video would get deleted before I got back. They wanted me to give them permission to enter the home and get the hard drive. I refused, but I assured them it would not. I reviewed my videos, pulled up the relevant footage, copied it to a USB drive, and handed it over. They wound up catching and convicting the guy.
He was charged with 9 felonies, including arson, armed burglary, several counts of grand larceny, and theft of a firearm. He reached a plea agreement where he got 6 months’ probation and his records were sealed.
Then it became a habit. After that, the cops came over for every single incident that occurred anywhere near my house and wanted my camera footage. The cops wouldn’t even reimburse me for the USB drives. It started getting expensive after the 5th or 6th time, both in free USB drives and in the use of my time. I told them I should be eligible for a crime stoppers award. When they refused, I eventually had to tell them to get bent. I’m not going to keep doing your jobs for you for free, the cops were getting paid while I did their jobs for them at my expense.
I want to see cops defend the cops’ actions at this point. The person here wasn’t suspected of a crime. They weren’t even awake- it was 3am. The cops are investigating.
I will say it again- qualified immunity needs to be replaced with a requirement for liability insurance. The dirty little secret is there is no law establishing qualified immunity. That particular little benefit for dirty cops was created by the courts, who supposedly don’t have the power to make law, in a blatant example of legislating from the bench.
I ran a travel agency, and Florida law REQUIRES a bond in order to do so. Don’t you think liability for police with the power to take your life is more important than insurance for the travel agent who can ruin your vacation?
Here is another video on the incident, but it includes actual Ring camera video and some applicable court cases.
Gaming the Courts
Called It
I said the Clancy trial was jury nullification. The jurors now admit it was.
Gaming the Courts
It Turns Out I Was Wrong
I said yesterday that the AWFLs would drop the attacks on the Lone Standout after discovering he was black. It turns out that I was wrong. They will protect their own even more so than they protect the slaves on their plantation.
They are investigating and attacking the guy. The latest attack includes references to his having a domestic violence restraining order. These DV restraining orders are bullshit that women frequently use as a weapon in divorces or just to get even with a man who has done something they don’t like. I have twice been accused of this by angry ex-girlfriends who were trying to get revenge on me for daring to be their ex:
- In the first case, the woman used it in an attempt to extort cash from me, and a cop told her how to do it.
- In the second case, the woman learned about it from me after I had foolishly told her about the first time. She made all sorts of claims about things that she claimed I did. The big thing that saved me was that I had proof that I wasn’t even in the country when some of the events supposedly took place.
the law is abused. Here are the disturbing statistics:
25% of all divorces include accusations of domestic violence.
50% of all domestic violence restraining orders are issued without allegations of violence.
70% of domestic violence restraining orders are trivial or false. (PDF warning)
85% of restraining orders are against men
In fact, a New Mexico woman filed a restraining order against David Letterman in 2005, alleging that she was a victim of his domestic abuse. He had never met the woman. She said that he was using secret code words during his television show to threaten her. The judge in the case found her claims to have merit and granted the order, even though it was later overturned.
To me, if there is no accompanying criminal charge for domestic violence, then the entire issue is a woman making things up because she is a mad cow. The way it works, is a woman accuses a man of domestic violence. She is granted an ex parte hearing, where her accusations are all the court hears. If the court agrees that the claim has merit, the DV order is issued. The first hint a man has that one of these has been issued is when the cops show up with the order, which includes suspension of any concealed weapons permits, and an order that he turn his guns into the police within 48 hours.
Then he gets a hearing sometime in the next couple of weeks. He had better bring a lawyer, because she will have one, provided free of charge by the taxpayers. If he loses, the order becomes permanent, and he is now prohibited from owning firearms or ammunition. For life.
Most men don’t fight it because it costs money to hire a lawyer, money they don’t have. They figure they are never going to see her again, so what’s the big deal. Most don’t find out they are prohibited persons until after it is too late.
The law says that women can make an accusation of domestic violence and the court will punish the man by issuing a restraining order without him being allowed to defend himself. He gets a hearing two weeks later, but by that time his guns have been taken and his concealed weapons permit revoked. There is no fee for the woman to do this.
She gets a free lawyer. He does not. When it is discovered that she lied, nothing happens to her. She will not be prosecuted, and cannot be sued or punished in any way.
The Florida State Supreme Court has this to say on the matter:
Unfortunately, the current version of section 784.046 does not seem to permit the trial court to simply dismiss a sworn petition that does not allege facts that fall within the statutory language. Instead, section 784.046(5) requires that “[u]pon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time.” The result is the use of scant judicial resources to conduct unnecessary hearings based on pleadings that could never support the issuance of an injunction. These same hearings often serve only to inflame the parties’ emotions and foster further uncivil behavior. I would encourage the legislature to consider amending the domestic violence and repeat violence statutes to allow judges to dismiss petitions that, on their face, do not contain allegations sufficient to meet the statutory requirements without prejudice to the petitioner refiling a legally sufficient petition if he or she can do so.
Women who lie to use the law as a weapon cannot be punished. From the same decision:
Further, nowhere in section 784.046 is there any provision for an award of sanctions against a petitioner who uses the statutory provisions concerning injunctions as a sword rather than a shield.
The message is loud and clear- you will do what the AWFLs say, as a jury member, you will do whatever they want, or they will destroy your life.
At the end of the day, this is jury tampering. I don’t see how this is any different than a criminal threatening a witness.
Intimidation of a juror in Mass:
Using a juror’s identity or personal information to intimidate, harass, threaten, mislead, or retaliate against the juror (or their family) is a felony under G.L. c. 268, § 13B (intimidation of a juror). This covers both during and after a trial if the intent is to interfere with or punish participation in the proceeding.
Penalty:
- Up to 10 years in state prison, or
- Up to 2½ years in a house of correction, and/or
- Fine of $1,000–$5,000.
- If the underlying case involved a crime punishable by life imprisonment, the maximum prison term rises to 20 years.
This campaign to dox and harass this guy is nothing short of jury tampering, and is a felony.
Cops
Death Penalty
This case is a prime reason why I oppose the death penalty. Not in theory, but because I don’t trust the government with the power of life and death.
A former state forensic scientist on Tuesday was sentenced to 10 years in state prison after altering more than 1,000 samples in labs that prosecutors say could have disproportionately affected sexual assault victims over many years.
In this particular case, she made the DNA appear to not match, resulting in people who were guilty being able to walk free, but that isn’t going to be the case with every nutball in government service with the power to alter test results. For example:
- The FBI Lab underwent massive restructuring in the late 1990s following a whistleblower report by Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, who exposed flawed scientific testimonies and contamination within the lab.
- In 2004, former FBI biologist Jacqueline M. Blake pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor charge for providing false statements in her laboratory reports.
- A massive 2015 joint review by the FBI and the Innocence Project revealed an even deeper systemic issue: for over two decades before 2000, microscopic hair comparison examiners from the FBI gave flawed, scientifically invalid testimony in over 95% of the trials reviewed, contributing to numerous wrongful convictions across the United States.
It’s a certainty that at least some people have been sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit. If we execute even one innocent person, we are all collectively murderers. I just cannot support that.
Military
Stolen Valor
I was at work the other day, and a patient told me he had a history of PTSD because he was in 9/11. He is 71 years old, meaning he was in his mid-40s on that day. Making conversation, I asked him how he was there, thinking he may have been in one of the buildings.
Nope, he replied he was a Navy SEAL and was helping search the pile for several weeks. To the best of my knowledge, there were no SEALs doing that work. So I asked a follow up: “What BUD/S class were you in?”
He replied that he was in class 100 with a SEAL named Jim Weber. Then he went on to tell me he was an Electrician’s mate and attended Nuclear Power School in Orlando in 1971.
For some reason, the people who participate in stolen valor always claim to be SEALS or some other badass occupation. No one ever says “I was a cook.”
There are only about 7,000 former (i.e. non-serving) Navy SEALs scattered among our nation’s population of 313+MILLION. That’s approximately one (1) former Navy SEAL for every 45 THOUSAND citizens
You have far greater chance of meeting a former NFL football player than you have of ever encountering a real Navy SEAL. With that said, the FBI estimates that there are 300 SEAL Imposters for every living Navy SEAL.
His claims are bullshit for the following reasons:
- BUD/S Class 100 graduated in 1979 (Class 102 graduated in May 1979, and Class 101/103 also took place in 1979). If he was in Nuclear Power School in 1971, there is a massive, unexplained 8-year gap before he graduated from BUD/S. While not strictly impossible if someone cross-rated later in their career, it is highly unusual given the strict age cut-offs for SEAL training (usually 28 and under).
- He entered the Navy around 1970 and was still active duty on September 11, 2001. He was in the Navy for 30 years, and retired as an E6? Under the military’s strict “Up or Out” high-year tenure (HYT) laws, an enlisted sailor cannot remain on active duty for 30 years without reaching the rank of Master Chief Petty Officer (E-9).
- Navy Nuclear Power school was not in Orlando until 1976. A person who was in the nuclear power pipeline in 1971 would have attended the school in either Bainbridge, Maryland or Mare Island, California.
- With him being 71 years old now, he would have been 15 or 16 years old when he attended Power School in 1971.
I run into people who claim to have served all the time. One of the worst was this loser named John who was my boss many years ago. He claimed to everyone that he knew that he had been in Vietnam as the door gunner in a Chinook, his helicopter was shot down, and he spent years (I can’t remember how many) as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton. The story of the chopper being shot down was my first clue- he said the pilot was killed, and described reaching over the pilot’s shoulder from his door gunning position and tried to prevent the crash. It seemed far-fetched.
That just didn’t seem likely to me, so I wrote to the POW/MIA association and inquired if a person by his name was ever a POW in Vietnam. The answer was no, he was not.
Stolen valor is a real issue. There are a lot of losers out there who try to steal military coolness for themselves. When people ask me what I did in the military, I either give them the real story (I was an electrician) or I make a joke and tell them I killed over 200 men. When they say, “Wow! Were you like a SEAL or something?” I reply that I was either an aircraft mechanic or a cook. I recently was working with a Lt. Colonel in the reserves (a Doctor) and he instantly laughed when I said cook, and replied with “No shit.”
Crime
Balls of Fire
This post is late because it’s concerning the Lindsay Clancy trial. I wrote and scheduled it before the mistrial was declared. I decided to postpone it so I could do some edits. This is the result.
The Lindsay Clancy case has brought the TikTok Detective bureau out of the shadows. These women, experts in everything from police procedure to medicine, psychology, forensic evidence collection, law, military tactics, and nuclear physics are on the case and have declared Lindsay to be not guilty for reasons ranging from insanity to “her husband did it.”
Of course claims she didn’t do it at all for some reason, including claims that it was her husband are demonstrably false. As evidence, we can take the word of her attorney. No, not the attorney in the current criminal trial, but her attorney from January, where she was the plaintiff in a lawsuit against her doctor. I’m posting a pdf of the notes from the case and the actual complaint filed with the Norfolk, Mass. court (pdf warning).
In that lawsuit, she made the following claim:
and this one, also from her lawsuit:
Keep in mind, she was indicted for killing those children in October 2023, yet waited to file this lawsuit until January of 2026, shortly before her criminal trial. This is part of a claim Lindsay and her attorneys are making, that she was not in control or aware of her actions at the time she killed the children.
For that reason, there is no doubt, zero, that she in fact killed those children.
Killing someone isn’t always illegal, but in those cases, the defense requires admitting to the facts. For example, if I shoot and kill someone who tried to rob me at gunpoint, claiming self defense requires that I admit to shooting and killing the person, but I have an affirmative defense in that self defense is legal. I make the claim of being in reasonable fear for my life. The prosecution then has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting wasn’t in self defense.
The actual controlling Massachusetts rule is the doctrine of criminal responsibility, originating in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case law rather than a statute specifically saying “psychosis.” The foundational case is Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544, 546–547 (1967). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s current 2026 Model Jury Instruction on Criminal Responsibility states:
A person is not criminally responsible for his conduct if he has a mental disease or defect, and, as a result of that mental disease or defect, lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
The evidence never required anyone to believe Lindsay Clancy was well. She clearly was not, as anyone who will kill their children is not mentally well. But being profoundly mentally ill and not being responsible for your actions are not the same thing. The law in this case requires the person making the insanity claim be unaware of the wrongfulness of their actions.
None of the providers who treated Lindsay Clancy diagnosed her with postpartum depression or psychosis. The evidence instead pointed toward a serious mood disorder, with multiple of them diagnosong her as bipolar.
As many who are bipolar do, she resisted that diagnosis, changed providers, often skipping or refusing to take medications. Lindsay was prescribed 13 different psychiatric medications over several months. That does NOT mean she was taking 13 medications simultaneously. The prosecution’s evidence indicated roughly 2–3 at a time. Then there’s the actual pill inventory presented at trial:
- Zoloft: 30 prescribed — 23 remained
- Ativan: 30 prescribed — 24 remained
- Buspirone: 30 prescribed — 28 remained
- Hydroxyzine: 30 prescribed — 27 remained
- Buspirone refill: 30 prescribed — ALL 30 remained
- Trazodone: 30 prescribed — 22½ remained
She hid some of her most disturbing thoughts from the people treating her because she knew it would result in her kids being taken. Above all, people with this condition are well known for resisting treatment, because they “aren’t crazy.”
Lindsay claims through her attorney that she became convinced that her brain was damaged and she would never return to her old self. She was suicidal, but her children were a tether to life, according to her claims.
Then there is the alleged voice. After months of treatment without documented psychosis, Lindsay said she heard a voice telling her to kill the children in the days and minutes before the killings. We are talking about roughly an 18-minute window where a voice commanded she kill her children. She never spoke of this voice before, or mentioned it until after the killings.
Yet during the killings and the hours preceding them, she was capable of purposeful, sequential behavior.
She created the opportunity to be alone with the children. She researched how long her husband’s trip would take and added another errand to extend that time. She killed the children one by one over a 15 minute period. When her husband called during this time, she missed his call and then made the decision to call him back. In the middle of a psychotic break so profound that it compelled her to kill her three children without realizing the gravity of her actions, she still recognized her husband had called, understood that not responding could warrant him returning early, and took affirmative action to call him back. That is difficult to reconcile with the narrative that Lindsay suddenly “snapped” and had no awareness of what she was doing.
Lindsay was profoundly mentally ill and genuinely wanted to die. But she still understood what she was doing when she killed her children. Those things are not mutually exclusive. She took steps to hide her psychosis, this alleged voice compelling her to kill, to get her husband out of the house, and to one by one kill her children.
Mental illness deserves compassion, and postpartum mental health deserves treatment, attention, and resources. However, compassion can’t replace the legal standard for criminal responsibility.
If the standard becomes, “She was a loving mother, therefore she must have snapped,” we’re no longer applying the law to the evidence. We’re creating our own definition of justice based on emotion and feelings.
In my opinion, this woman knew exactly what she was doing. She took steps to hide her behavior while she was carrying out her plan. All of this suggests cunning and a sense of guilt. You don’t hide your actions if you are unaware of the wrongness of what you are doing. In Massachusetts, the legal term for this is “consciousness of guilt.”
The legal issue to which those facts are relevant is whether the Commonwealth proved that the defendant retained substantial capacity to “appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness” of the conduct and to conform conduct to law. Massachusetts defines “appreciate” as understand, “criminality” as the legal significance of the conduct, and “wrongfulness” as its moral significance.
In this case, taking steps to prevent her plan from being foiled:
- conceal what they intended to do
- waited until her husband was gone
- created a diversion to get her husband away from the scene
- lied about what she intended to do
- selected the time or place designed to avoid intervention
- took steps calculated to ensure nobody discovered or stopped the act.
In my mind, that is what it boils down to: Did this woman know what she was doing was wrong, as evidenced by the fact that she took active, complex actions to ensure no one could discover or prevent her from carrying out her plan.
I think the answer is that she knew full well what she was doing. I tip my hat to the one juror who had the cajones to stand his ground in the face of the other 11 members of the jury, the judge, and the defense attorney. He stood up for those children, despite surely knowing what would happen to him in the aftermath, once his identity is discovered. The left is going to make his life miserable.
Now there are actually dumbasses out there who are calling for the elimination of the jury trial, saying we should use professional tribunals instead.