Cal

@DailyMail Fuck you

This fills me with rage.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. State Farm High School 3-point champions. ⬇️ 2026 - Luke Ertel 2022 - Fletcher Loyer 2015 - Ryan Cline

@CODUpdates Delete it entirely

📢 Call of Duty: #BlackOps7 The Deadeye Drone has been temporarily restricted across Multiplayer while we investigate an issue.

It's wild how you can post a video from 60 years ago in Boston and it immediately looks like "White supremacist" propaganda

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.

Today is Good Friday. Thank you, Jesus for your amazing and unthinkable sacrifice. You died so that we would have life, and life in abundance. “It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews … With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, ‘Surely this man was the Son of God!’” Mark 15

Hours after this leaks, the US Army Chief of Staff is TOLD to resign & retire effective immediately. You connect the dots.

@verge Fuck off, retard

The Artemis Moon base project is legally dubious theverge.com/science/905406…

Ah, yes. The constitutionally-mandated ability for illegal immigrants to enter via a haphazard cellphone app instituted by executive order. The judiciary is dead. And it was a suicide.

There’s literally a chair set up at SCOTUS for our presidents to sit in for oral argument. Your separation of powers nonsense is more imitation pearl-clutching hauteur.

If deportations are politically impossible and birthright citizenship stands any illusion of electoral legitimacy is over This isn’t a “suck it up and deal with political reality” situation This is “the government is illegitimate, time to pledge sacred oaths” territory

If a Chinese billionaire’s test tube baby purchased in the outlying islands is just as much of a citizen as I am, then US citizenship is meaningless.

The Democrat party is a political terror organization.

Clint is an insider. Senator Thune betrayed the entire institution of the United States Senate.

Senate leadership sent notice of the DHS bill at 12:55am. Then a voice vote was held at 2:19am. The notice said, “with a substitute amendment” and gave no description of the substitute. The legislative language of the substitute was not sent around to GOP Senate staff. (Idk about Dems.) If you’re a staffer watching your email at that hour (some were!) you had to request the language of the bill. Track down leadership staff to find out how quickly this is moving. Try to read and understand it quickly. Understand how it changed from the original. Get your boss on the phone and explain it. Talk to other staffers to figure out if there’s a coalition to block it — they don’t know — their boss is trying to decide what to do too. Whoops, your one hour is up, the bill is passing and nothing you can do. Purposefully sneaky. They can do this kind of maneuver to not fund immigration enforcement. They would never dream of doing it for your priorities.

On this day in 2019, Ryan Cline splashed 7️⃣ threes in a thrilling win over Tennessee 🚂 #MarchMadness

All of the arguments for euthanasia fail. Even if I agreed that people have some kind of moral right to kill themselves (which I don’t), euthanasia wouldn’t be needed to exercise that “right.” You can already kill yourself. The idea that people need some kind of state sponsored system just to commit suicide is totally incoherent, even on its own terms. And those term are totally deranged because in truth, again, there is no moral right to suicide. But that’s almost a separate question, or at least a question further downstream. When it comes to euthanasia, the first and most immediate question is not whether people have the right to kill themselves, but whether the STATE and the MEDICAL INDUSTRY have the right to kill people. Should doctors be in the business of deliberately killing human beings? Should we have a bureaucracy for suicide? These are the real questions. And even if you (wrongly) think that humans have a moral right to murder themselves, you should still be able to see why doctors and bureaucrats ought to have no role in it.

No, there is no "unifying with the Left" on anything. The Left IS the enemy. The true enemy. The only enemy that matters since the French Revolution. Leftism is explicitly anti-Western, and in its modern form, it is explicitly anti-White. And "allying" with these people in any way is to turn yourself into a useful idiot for the same political ideology that wants to see you dead and dispossessed in your own country. This is why Southern Whites stopped voting Democrat. The Democratic Party got hijacked by Leftists beginning over a century ago, and that process was more or less completed by the 1980s. Southern Whites saw this, recognized who was friend, and who was foe, and updated their political calculus accordingly....despite generations of them all universally identifying with the Democratic Party. They are now the most Republican-friendly demographic in America...not because the GOP is based or perfect. Quite the opposite. The GOP is largely filled with spineless losers who can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. But Southern Whites are almost universally Republicans at this point because they see the Democratic Party as nothing more than a vehicle for Leftism, and they recognize Leftism as the enemy.