AgaObF

"He showed a generation the way to happiness and freedom." americanmind.org/salvo/charl… Charlie Kirk, In Memoriam americanmind.org/salvo/charl…

Colorado: Vote YES on Prop 133, 134, and 135 ☑️🗳️

The "lawfully in the U.S." framing is doing the same work as the 2020 "no such thing as voter fraud" line. Green card holders who vote illegally are not "illegal aliens", fine. But they are committing a federal crime. "Lawfully in the country" is not a defense to voting in an election you're not eligible for. The crime is the vote, not the immigration status. NBC's headline picks the detail that makes it sound like nothing happened. It did.

Maricopa has a documented track record of election-day technical and equipment problems (most notably the 2022 printer/tabulator issues that affected tens of thousands of ballots, plus earlier setup and system problems). That history makes “power issues closing sites in a relatively favorable area the day before the election” look convenient to a lot of people. Scott Presler’s point in the quoted post is straightforward: these kinds of last-minute disruptions are exactly why early voting is crucial. Maricopa pattern of issues continues to erode trust.

Maine: The Protect Girls Sports in Maine committee submitted nearly 5,000 additional signatures at Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' office to qualify the referendum for the Nov. 2027 ballot. What the referendum would do: Require all Maine public schools to designate sports teams and facilities (locker rooms, bathrooms, showers) by sex on the birth certificate, not gender identity. It's not a PAC or a political action committee. It's teenage girls whose actual games and actual locker rooms are at stake, showing up at the Secretary of State's office the day before a Senate election in a deep-blue state.

Colorado: Hopefully no rain this week. Looks bad. Hope ppl and animals are safe.

The gold claim is true and significant. Poland (NBP): 672.9 tonnes as of Sept. 2026, heading toward a 700-tonne target. That puts Poland at #10 in the world. So a country of 38 million people now holds more gold than the entire European Central Bank. That's a remarkable fact, and it's not a coincidence that it's happening right now. The NBP has been buying aggressively for over a decade, and the January 2026 decision to push to 700t was explicit. The NBP under Glapiński has been deliberately building a sovereign financial buffer, an asset that can't be frozen, can't be sanctioned, can't be diluted by monetary policy. I am not sure if the euro and the gold are the goal here. The truth is simpler and uglier: Tusk's coalition needs the TK crisis resolved to protect their 2027 election position, and the only way to resolve it in their favor is to remove the institutional obstacles (the president, the sitting judges). So the plan is: control the court, remove the veto, lock in EU primacy, and win in 2027.

Poland: Korwin-Piotrowska, when directly asked about the possibility of sidelining Nawrocki from his duties and transferring them to Sejm Speaker Włodzimierz Czarzasty, did not deny the scenario. The constitutional mechanism exists: Article 131 of the Polish Constitution: if the president is unable to perform his duties, the Sejm Speaker performs them temporarily. The question is whether "unable" can be stretched to mean "we don't like what he's doing." Invoking 131 against a president who is actively exercising his powers is not what the article was designed for. It's designed for death, resignation, or medical incapacity. More and more it looks like premediated plan of Tusk and his EU allies: 1⃣ Remove or suspend the president → no veto 2⃣ Pass ordinary legislation implementing CJEU rulings more aggressively (funding conditions, judicial restructuring, etc.) 3⃣ The TK (now under coalition control) rubber-stamps it as constitutional 4⃣ De facto EU primacy without a constitutional amendment Just like that, Poland as a sovereign state whose constitution is the supreme law and whose president has real powers is gone. Poland with the label of sovereignty but without the substance. The constitution on the books, the government in practice answering to Luxembourg. You don't need a conspiracy to see the logic. If your stated goal is "EU law must be supreme over the Polish constitution," and the only obstacle is a president who won't let you get there, and you have the parliamentary majority to remove him (or his powers), and you control the court that would otherwise check you: the "plan" writes itself.

Ds reaction to Haley Stevens endorsing R Mike Rogers over D nominee Abdul El-Sayed is telling. Stevens, a sitting D congresswoman from Michigan, narrowly lost the 2026 D Senate primary to El-Sayed. She publicly endorsed Rogers after El-Sayed’s campaign told her she was no longer welcome. In her announcement, she framed the choice around rejecting what she called hate and associations (including with streamer Hasan Piker) that she viewed as incompatible with Michigan values, while emphasizing she remained a D on other races. Stevens’ decision reflects a real intra-party fracture over Israel/Gaza and electability in a swing state more than abstract “democracy” principles. The rapid pivot to demanding exile for a Democrat who broke ranks after a tight primary loss illustrates how quickly the moralizing can become tribal enforcement. Calling it illegitimate or career-ending, however, is pure factionalism dressed up as principle. Ppl who treat every primary loss as a loyalty oath and every cross-endorsement as betrayal are practicing politics as team sport, not democratic persuasion. The backlash: 💠 Chuck Schumer: Called it a “despicable betrayal” while reiterating full support for El-Sayed. 💠 JB Pritzker: Said it was “just terrible,” that anyone not supporting Ds taking the Senate “should just be quiet.” 💠 Curtis Hertel (Michigan Democratic Party chair): Stated Stevens “is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future.” 💠 Elissa Slotkin (D-MI): "anyone who makes an election this important about themselves...should think hard about whether they are serving the greater good". 💠 Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Both publicly rebuked the move as a betrayal of working-class voters and a self-focused distraction from the stakes. 💠 Mehdi Hassan: "livid that a woman would dare to make up her own mind". 💠 Bill Kristol (a former R who switched to D): suggested she was having "a breakdown or something." Many repeated that. The "breakdown" framing converts a political disagreement into a medical event. If she's "breaking down," her endorsement isn't a reasoned judgment call. 💠 David Axelrod & Van Jones (CNN): Both "strongly imply" she's having a mental breakdown. 💠 Harry Sisson (TikTok progressive influencer): Declared that “Haley Stevens should have no future in the Democratic Party”. He framed her move as disqualifying party disloyalty. 💠 George Conway: Called her "certifiable". Many of these ppl have previously celebrated or excused cross-aisle movement when it benefited Ds. None of them engaged with her actual argument. None of them said "here's why El-Sayed's position on Israel is wrong." Instead: she's unstable. She's having a breakdown. She's being manipulated. She's off her rocker. A woman who made a political decision she was entitled to make gets pathologized instead of having her argument addressed. foxnews.com/media/democrat-h…

Vote 🗳️

This is looking scary. Stay safe Pagosa Springs.

Vote! 🗳️

Important weekend in Poland...🇵🇱 🪦 🕯️

Kristol’s own long, public shift from R neoconservative to Never-Trump and Democratic-aligned was a major political realignment driven by his judgment of Trump and the post-2016 GOP. Calling a sitting Democratic congresswoman’s cross-party endorsement a “breakdown” is the same style of pathologizing a political choice he doesn’t like. So he framed his own GOP exit as moral clarity and is suddenly reaching for clinical language the moment a Democrat breaks ranks.

The Russia angle is a pure diversion. Fact is no technical evidence of coordinated Russian bot activity specific to this crisis has been publicly presented. It is a classic rhetorical move: paint domestic opponents as foreign agents so their arguments about sovereignty, constitutional procedure, or migration policy can be dismissed without engagement. Polish patriot who objects to Tusk’s methods a NOT Kremlin assets. The core conflict is Polish: who decides the country’s legal and political direction, how much deference is owed to Brussels, and whether border and demographic policy remain national choices. Labeling the opposition “Russian” is a way to avoid debating those questions on their merits.

On Oct. 11, 2025, Barack Obama posted a video introducing three alumni of his foundation’s network: Sándor Léderer (K-Monitor), Stefánia Kapronczay (Hungarian human-rights activist), and Zuzanna Rudzińska-Bluszcz (former Polish deputy justice minister under the post-2023 Tusk government). When a former U.S. president and his foundation single out two EU democracies that held repeated free elections, rotated power and maintained functioning multiparty systems (while largely ignoring or soft-pedaling actual one-party dictatorships, theocratic repression, mass surveillance states, and genocidal regimes) it is not neutral “democracy promotion.” It is priority-setting. The priorities track closely with where Western progressive networks, major foundations, and EU institutions have long clashed hardest with elected governments: migration policy, cultural/identity issues, and resistance to supranational authority. This is not unique to Obama. It is a broader progressive and institutional habit: “democracy” is increasingly defined less by free and fair elections plus basic liberal protections, and more by convergence on a specific package of outcomes such as migration levels, speech norms, gender and identity policies, and deference to transnational bodies. When electorates choose otherwise, the response is often to treat the choice itself as the problem rather than a legitimate expression of popular will. That inversion turns ordinary political disagreement into a morality play, and it is why the focus lands so consistently on the European holdouts rather than the places where democracy is most thoroughly extinguished. The selectivity is revealing.

She didn't recite the poem and think "this is a terrible thing I'm doing." She recited it with great pride, that's the documented fact. The "deeply sorry" comes after the university, her parents, and the criminal exposure arrive. That's not remorse. That's damage assessment. She was performing for an audience that would validate her. When the audience turned out to be the entire country and the validation turned out to be not what she expected, the "fame" became "infamy" and the apology is the exit strategy. The strongest tell: she's sorry "that the things she said resulted in people calling her a monster." Not sorry she said them. Sorry they landed. That's the difference between remorse and PR.

The "both sides" frame has a structural weakness that makes it self-defeating in this case: the frame only works if both sides are equally documented. The NYT piece has: 12 sources, text messages, documents, a named operative (Jerid Kurtz), a named former campaign manager (Elisa Rios), and a confirmed DOJ criminal investigation with subpoenas. That's the "D side." The "R side" is: name one. Name one Republican who recruited a same-name candidate to confuse voters. Name one. You can't, because it didn't happen. So "Republicans do it too" isn't a counterargument. It's a placeholder, a phrase that occupies the space where an argument should be, so the audience doesn't notice the absence.

The NY Times reporting stands. The follow-up doesn't. A newsroom that needs to publicly justify its choices after the fact isn't defending its story. It's doing damage control in front of the audience.

The CJEU has no enforcement arm/its ruling does not magically create domestic powers the Polish executive never had. The entire EU legal architecture for "compliance" works through one mechanism: infringement proceedings. The Commission opens a case → the CJEU rules → if the member state doesn't comply, the Commission can request the court to impose a lump-sum penalty or periodic fine. That's it. No police. No seizures. No removal of judges. The EU's maximum legal sanction against a non-complying state is a check. So when Tusk's government deploys riot police to the Tribunal, orders guards to pack up, and suspends the sitting president overnight, they are not "enforcing a CJEU ruling." They are doing something no EU institution authorized and no domestic statute permits.