Oregon Red

@Maphesdus @XFreeze Civil rights is about free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, not about protecting everyone’s feelings from being hurt by someone who doesn’t like them or who disagrees with their precious opinions.

This is backwards. Civil Rights is about protecting people from discrimination based on things like race, sex, gender identity, religion, etc. The fact that Elon Musk’s goons have been actively attacking organizations that protect and defend Civil Rights should tell you that he’s being dishonest and disingenuous here.

Elon Musk nails exactly why the woke mind virus is fundamentally racist, sexist, and evil: "Woke mind virus is when you stop caring about people's skills and their integrity And you start focusing instead on gender and race and other things that are different from that" It's the ultimate disguise: "It basically gives mean people a shield to be mean and cruel, armored in false virtue" Meritocracy > Identity politics 🎯

@ConceptualJames @CodyLibolt No defeatism 😀.

Next few years are going to be a wild ride. Some of us tried.

@thewriterme The anti-Israel taint on Vance is completely unacceptable to me. Carlson and Owens have gone insane. I will not support their guy, Vance.

First: Conservative Republicans need to run for local offices. Second: I don’t give a rats ass about Tucker or Candace. Third: This may be every reason in the world to put your money and vote behind Rubio. Time will tell. 💥

@GeromanAT @AriFleischer Awesome! Thank you! We will and be happy doing it. Next time your civilization is on fire, we’ll get out the marshmallows and watch.

@AriFleischer We don't need your Maffia style protection here in Europe. Just fuck off and go.

When this is over, the western part of NATO will never be the same. Spain, England, France and Italy have sold us out, as they too often have a history of doing. Eastern European nations are the heart of NATO. They spend money on defense, know how to fight and love the US. France particularly deserves fault and blame. From supporting China and Russia at the UN to denying Americans overflight rights, they’re doing what they’ve always done - showing weakness, while cutting deals with terrorists. (The reason the US has a Marine Corps and Navy is unlike France, we refused to pay a ransom to the Barbary Pirates. France is always happy to cut a deal.) Wars have unintended consequences as nations show their true colors. NATO will never be the same, and Western European weakness and acquiescence is the cause.

@Dimitris_Efsta @theliamnissan @mattvanswol Thank you! You give us more reasons to let Europe protect itself and pay for itself. Keep going. Yell louder and next we’ll laugh to scorn next time a Putin invades your pathetic little country.

@theliamnissan @mattvanswol From Greece! I hope he is captured and tried! The children y monsters killed deserve justice! Get the fuck out of NATO you back stabbing terrorists!

I'm seeing thousands of Americans in my timeline on X today: a) rooting against America b) hoping Trump is dead c) rooting against THE RESCUE of an American pilot Where do we go from here?

@kickstart0225 @RyanSaavedra @bdomenech You’re obsessed to the point of derangement.

@RyanSaavedra @bdomenech Let’s put this in perspective. 1. Israel is the greatest threat to the United States. In my opinion, Tucker, and everyone else, is not talking about that enough. 2. Trump deserves to be backstabbed. He sold out his base and the United States. He put Israel first.

President Trump posts an article by Douglas Murray that highlights Tucker Carlson's extremism, embrace of Islamists, and America Last: The article is titled: "Deranged Tucker Carlson backstabs Trump" Several of the top lines in the piece include: -"While the president has advocated a strong defense of America’s regional allies, Carlson has spent 100% of his time trying to turn the MAGA base against Israel and in favor of Islamist regimes." -"His podcast has become a remorseless roll call of Holocaust deniers, antisemites, Islamic extremists and World War II revisionists." -"While attacking Trump, Carlson eagerly softball-interviews people who love both Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin." -"While accusing everyone else of being obsessed with Israel, Carlson has obsessed about nothing else. While saying 'We’re not allowed to talk about Jews,' he has talked about nothing but Jews." -"This culminated in Carlson calling Trump’s actions 'evil.' ... From being Trump cheerleaders, Carlson & co. are trying to do everything they can to destroy the president."

@pdxmoderate Kudos to WW, which has gotten more sane as the fruits of far-leftism become obvious even to them.

Anthony Effinger and his team at Willamette Week just dropped a chart and analysis that should make every Multnomah County taxpayer furious!! Between 2015 and 2025, County revenue didn’t just grow—it exploded, jumping from $1.1 billion to $2.7 billion. That’s an 80% increase even after inflation. And yet somehow, despite this windfall, Chair Jessica Vega Pederson is now telling departments to slash budgets. You can’t make this up. Effinger points to three main drivers: the expiration of urban renewal districts, a hike in the Business Income Tax from 1.45% to 2.0%, and a flood of new taxes—most notably the Supportive Housing Services (SHS) tax, the so-called “Pre-School for a Few” tax, and a 5-year library bond. The real problem is that third category. The SHS tax massively ballooned operating grants from $351 million to $1.14 billion. But this isn’t flexible funding—it’s locked into programs that don’t address the County’s core responsibilities like public safety and public health. Worse, Vega Pederson chose to spend it on policies that enable street camping—tents, tarps, and low-barrier shelters—while homelessness surged 177% over the same period. That’s not a coincidence; that’s a policy failure. Then there’s the “Pre-School for a Few” program—another Vega Pederson pet project. It’s a narrowly targeted, inefficient system that serves a fraction of families while duplicating existing state efforts. Instead of empowering parents broadly, it props up a limited supply-side model that leaves most people out. And because income tax revenue is volatile, the County has socked away a staggering $600 million reserve—effectively insulating politically favored programs from the very instability they created. That reserve is now even inflating reported “investment income,” adding another $92 million to the books. So yes, they’re now making money off the taxes they over-collected. Meanwhile, the County’s core functions—like the DA’s office and the Sheriff—are stuck relying on a General Fund that barely grows thanks to property tax limits. So while specialty programs swell, the basics of governance are left to scrape by. Bottom line: this isn’t a revenue problem. It’s a priorities problem. Effinger’s piece is essential reading. The next step? Someone needs to run this exact same analysis on City of Portland spending. @jvegapederson @MayorKWilson @GovTinaKotek

Somewhere along the way we decided this wasn't worth saving. I want my country back.

@LangmanVince Matt Gaetz is not a quality man. Marco Rubio is a quality man. See the difference?

I'm seeing a bunch of people calling for Matt Gaetz to be the next AG. I don't trust this guy anymore, what about you?

@eggmunkee @matthewcoppola @ConceptualJames Satan began by "just asking questions."

@matthewcoppola @ConceptualJames Just asking questions and he won't let us! That tactic is played out. The questions and the sentiments are being amply expressed and those successful expressions of constant doubt and critique are inviting correction and description of the philosophical basis for it.

What you see almost endlessly from Tucker Carlson, "Comic" Dave Smith, Theo Von, etc., and the rest of the blackpillers amounts to a Critical America Theory. I'm not making this up. I'm explaining. Critical Theory was developed by neo-Marxist Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School in 1937. In an interview in 1969, Horkheimer explained what the Critical Theory is. He said (closely paraphrasing): "I developed the Critical Theory because we [Western neo-Marxists] realized we cannot articulate the good or ideal society on the terms of the existing society. What we can do is criticize those aspects of the existing society that we wish to change." In other words, a Critical Theory believes everything is so captured and corrupted by power and those who benefit from systems of power that it isn't even possible to talk about a better situation in clear terms. All that's available is criticism of why the system/society isn't better than it is. This activity has come to be known as identifying or "making visible" the various "problematics" in the existing system. A Critical Theory OF SOMETHING would focus this general mode of engagement into a particular domain. For example, a Critical Theory of Race in America would believe that racism is so endemic to a society and embedded within its systems to the benefit of whites that we cannot articulate a true "antiracist" vision on the terms available to us. All we could do is identify where "racism" manifests and criticize it for being there. We call that program "Critical Race Theory" because it is a Critical Theory of Race. What it does in practice is (1) identifies "hidden racism" in everything (criticizing those elements of the existing (racial) system they wish to change), called "identifying problematics"; (2) induces more people to think this way; nothing else. What a Critical America Theory would look like is not being able to articulate what a good or ideal America would look like on the terms of the existing America but criticizing those elements of America as it exists that we wish to change. That is, it would look for everything America isn't doing perfectly according to some ideal standard that doesn't exist, probably cannot exist, and cannot even be articulated and "make those problematics visible" in the hopes of changing the system. Leftists, including the whole of Critical Race Theory, do this endlessly. From Derrick Bell's (founder of CRT) 1970 book, Race, Racism, and American Law, forward, it is a relentless racial Critical America Theory. That's why it exported poorly and often hilariously to other countries that don't have the same law or racial history. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (1980) is another example, a very naked example, of a work of Critical America Theory. Specifically, this book goes through every chapter of American history, from pre-founding (Christopher Columbus) to the present (1980 at the time) and catalogues how America cheated "the people," mainly workers, indigenous, racial minorities, and women (the intersectional coalition). What I'm telling you is that the blackpillers of Podcastistan and X, etc., very notably including Tucker Carlson, are doing a socially conservative variation on Critical America Theory. Whether Carlson or "Auron MacIntyre" (nhrn) from The Blaze, the undertone of every message is plainly "you don't hate your (real) country enough" as compared against an imaginary ideal that doesn't, can't, and won't ever exist. The Blackpill Comics all do the same thing, relentlessly identifying "problematics" and alleged hidden systems of control that delegitimize the country as it actually is against a standard that isn't even real. The thing is, Critical America Theory is a Critical Theory of America. That is, it is a Critical Theory. That is, when you participate in this slop, you are taking on a critical consciousness about America. Having a critical consciousness is being WOKE, by definition (of Woke). This slop is Woke. When this Critical America Theory slop takes on a socially Leftist slant, we call it Woke Left (or just Woke). When this Critical America Theory slop takes on a socially conservative or Rightist slant, we call it Woke Right (which is just Woke too). They are both Woke. They are both toxic. They are both false enlightenment into a kind of terrible darkness, entitlement, malice, despair, hatred, and failure. Reject Critical America Theory. Love your country. It's great, and it's worth it.

@matthewcoppola @ConceptualJames Don't we have the left to "criticize America"? Do we really need people on the "right" helping them by piling on?

@ConceptualJames So people who want to improve their country are “Critical America Theorists.” Your position is that the status quo is good enough, and that any attempt toward any improvement would be worse? Basically, your argument is “anyone who criticizes America is woke.” Are you stupid?

@ConceptualJames Excellent analysis. Just needs a little editorial polishing to sharpen it and make it more clear for more people who may not be familiar with the concepts. Otherwise, excellent.

@n_fincham @DrJStrategy LOL. To think that people like you actually get to vote. Beijing and Moscow DO want to intervene — floating their warship right down the Thames and the Seine into London and Paris. Even the leftists Brits and the Frogs know this.

@DrJStrategy Although this forcing function may work in the end, it may force Europeans into the arms of the East. They may choose to request intervention from Beijing and/or Moscow for a diplomatic solution where Iran backs down.

Food for thought. Trump, Hormuz and the End of the Free Ride For half a century, Western strategists have known that the Strait of Hormuz is the acute point where energy, sea power and political will intersect. That knowledge is not in dispute. What is new in this war with Iran is that the United States, under Donald Trump, has chosen not to rush to “solve” the problem. In Hegelian terms, he is refusing an easy synthesis in order to force the underlying contradiction to the surface. The old thesis was simple: the US guarantees open sea lanes in the Gulf, and everyone else structures their economies and politics around that free insurance. Europe and the UK embraced ambitious green policies, ran down hard‑power capabilities and lectured Washington on multilateral virtue, secure in the assumption that American carriers would always appear off Hormuz. The political class behaved as if the American security guarantee were a law of nature, not a contingent choice. Their conduct today is closer to Chamberlain than Churchill: temporising, issuing statements, hoping the storm will pass without a fundamental reordering of their responsibilities. Trump’s antithesis is to withhold the automatic guarantee at the moment of maximum stress. Militarily, the US can break Iran’s residual ability to contest the Strait; that is not the binding constraint. The point is to delay that act. By allowing a closure or semi‑closure to bite, Trump ensures that the immediate pain is concentrated in exactly the jurisdictions that have most conspicuously free‑ridden on US power: the EU and the UK. Their industries, consumers and energy‑transition assumptions are exposed. In that context, his reported blunt message to European and British leaders, you need the oil out of the Strait more than we do; why don’t you go and take it? Is not a throwaway line. It is the verbalisation of the antithesis. It openly reverses the traditional presumption that America will carry the burden while its allies emote from the sidelines. In this dialectic, the prize is not simply the reopening of a chokepoint. The prize is a reordered system in which the United States effectively arbitrages and controls the global flow of oil. A world in which US‑aligned production in the Americas plus a discretionary capability to secure,or not secure, Hormuz places Washington at the centre of the hydrocarbon chessboard. For that strategic end, a rapid restoration of the old status quo would be counterproductive. A quick, surgical “fix” of Hormuz would short‑circuit the dialectic. If Trump rapidly crushed Iran’s remaining coastal capabilities, swept the mines and escorted tankers back through the Strait, Europe and the UK would heave a sigh of relief and return to business as usual: underfunded militaries, maximalist green posturing and performative disdain for US power, all underwritten by that same power. The contradiction between their dependence and their posture would remain latent. By declining to supply the synthesis on demand, and by explicitly telling London and Brussels to “go and take it” themselves, Trump forces a reckoning. European and British leaders must confront the fact that their energy systems, their industrial bases and their geopolitical sermons all rest on an American hard‑power foundation they neither finance nor politically respect. The longer the contradiction is allowed to unfold, the stronger the eventual synthesis can be: a new order in which access to secure flows, Hormuz, Venezuela and beyond, is explicitly conditional on real contributions, not assumed as a right. In that sense, the delay in “taking” the Strait, and the challenge issued to US allies to do it themselves, is not indecision. It is the negative moment Hegel insisted was necessary for history to move. Only by withholding the old guarantee, and by saying so out loud to those who depended on it, can Trump hope to end the free ride.

@PaulRChase @DrJStrategy You fools on the left constantly misunderstand Trump. Under the supposed bluster is a brilliant, Wharton-educated mind. I am sure he knows who Hegel is and what dialectic means. However, he talks in terms real Americans, not leftist elites, understand.

Well, here are my thoughts... Firstly, I doubt that Trump has ever heard of Hegel or would have the slightest inkling of what 'dialectic' means. But the picture you present is essentially Trump's narrative - that NATO allies and others are free-riders on American hard power. But your analysis is ahistorical. You write as if America has no skin in the game - like they're doing the rest of us a big favour keeping the bad guys at bay. You don't mention the petrodollar system that replaced the Bretton-Woods Agreement that was repudiated by the 'Nixon-shock' in 1974. That new system was a deal between the US and Saudi Arabia, and then the other Gulf petrostates, whereby in return for American guarantees of security and investment these states would price and sell oil in US Dollars - and then recycle the Dollar surplus back into the US economy by buying US debt. It is this arrangement that has created an almost limitless demand for US loan notes and funded 50 years-worth of US budget deficits. Part of that US security guarantee was to keep the Hormuz Strait open so the oil exports could keep flowing. But in this present conflict America has failed to defend its Gulf allies from Iran's retaliatory strikes and now the Hormuz Strait is closed. This is a strategic catastrophe for the US - proving themselves to be unreliable allies to the very states that buy their debt. This could be the fulcrum on which the petrodollar system is undermined or even collapses and the Yuan becomes the currency for pricing oil. This isn't some Trump-genius Hegelian dialectic working its way through, it's a god-almighty cock-up by a President being manipulated by a Zionist Israeli leader. The tail wagging the dog nearly always leads to disaster.

Iranian woman provides her perspective on the Islamic regime She was born in Iran and grew up under the regime

@ConceptualJames Their greatest crime, for which they will be most judged, is allowing themselves to be used of Satan to stifle the revival that was breaking out after Charlie was killed.

Sometimes I think about what the Woke Right is stealing from us, mostly in terms of opportunities and positivity during what should be a truly exciting moment in history, and I get really pissed. Then I remember the plan was always for them to spoil everything, and they can't.

@rickjeff78 @Contrarian08 @gummibear737 Ah yes. There it is. Always Israel-rage.

@Contrarian08 @gummibear737 Maybe Isreal's concern. You're a total fucking stooge if you think that's why the US got involved.

Iran was trying to use the North Korean model to get a nuke: create sufficient conventional deterrence so you won’t be challenged in acquiring one (it’s called the Seoul Hostage Problem). This has been explained over and over since day one. Everyone claiming shifting goalposts or no imminent threat has been lying. The reason North Korea was allowed to get nukes is because Seoul (and its 10 million inhabitants) is within artillery and rocket range of North Korea. During the 1994 nuclear crisis, the Clinton administration seriously considered airstrikes on North Korea’s Yongbyon reactor but backed off precisely because of the artillery threat to Seoul. Iran was trying to accomplish the same by stockpiling missiles and drones which would have had the same deterrent effect. The proof is what Iran has been doing in the past month: attacking all its neighbors in order to pressure the US to stop attacking it Beyond this, they were building medium-range ballistic missiles that could reach Paris and London, meaning all of Europe could be held hostage as they built a nuclear bomb. The reason Iran has not built a nuclear weapon until now is not because it couldn’t, but because it knew it would be attacked and denied this capability. So by allowing them to continue developing this conventional deterrence, you would be allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon. And unlike North Korea, Iran is led by an eschatological death cult Reagan saw nuclear mutually assured destruction (MAD) as both morally bankrupt (because of the innocent-body-count problem) and dangerously fragile because it assumed flawless rationality between adversaries…this means it only takes one irrational actor to destroy the world. Working backwards from the conclusion that Iran’s Islamist regime must never have a nuclear weapon, it was necessary for the US to attack Iran to deny it the conventional capacity to hold the entire eastern hemisphere hostage. Every European leader knows this and behind the scenes praises the US for this action. But they are cowards, held hostage by their own internal Muslim populations, and so adopt these ridiculous public positions. This was never about Israel. And if your argument is that Iran should be allowed to get a nuclear weapon then you are a fool and a traitor to western civilization…you’re a useful idiot

@BarakRavid @MarcACaputo @axios I'm worried about Vance. Too close to Carlson, too critical of Israel. I can't support him.

🇺🇸🇮🇱🇮🇷VP Vance told Netanyahu in a "difficult" call on Monday that several of Netanyahu's predictions about the war had proved far too optimistic, like the prospects of a popular uprising to topple the regime. @MarcACaputo & I write for @axios axios.com/2026/03/27/van…

@RapidResponse47 @POTUS Joe Kent is profoundly disloyal and unwise. His statement seems antisemitic and anti-Israel, which is completely unacceptable. It has no place in the GOP.

.@POTUS: If you look at Joe Kent's statements, he was all for everything. All of a sudden, he wasn't. He said that Iran is not a threat?? Iran's been a threat for 47 years, and there's not a country in the world that doesn't agree.

@OleTimeHardball No Christy Matthewson?! Stunning. No Ernie Banks? No Clemente? No Ripken? Satch was good, maybe great, but should not be on this list. Negro Leagues didn't keep good stats and only played 70-80 games a season against inferior talent. Not their fault, but still relevant.

Top 50 baseball players of All-Time Too high: J. Robinson, Rose, Ryan, Jeter Too low: Bench, Schmidt, Speaker