The more mellow side of their sound. The post The 1960s singer David Crosby said almost joined CSNY: “He can learn base” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Welcome to my favorite news story of the year. I’ll let Tyler O’Neil from the Daily Signal do the dirty work here: The Southern Poverty Law Center has raised money for decades claiming to dismantle white supremacy, but it funneled millions of dollars to white nationalist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, according to a federal indictment handed down Tuesday. The SPLC claims it was funding informants inside the extremist groups. While the SPLC “purports to fight white supremacy and racial hatred,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a press conference that “the SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose.” Blanche highlighted one example from the indictment, where the SPLC paid a member of the leadership group that planned the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. O’Neil has been wearing out the SPLC within the pages of the Daily Signal for a couple of years now. He deserves a lot of credit for exposing that organization for what it is. Namely, perhaps the most shameless, defamatory criminal syndicate ever to run the long con on the American polity. Everything about the Southern Poverty Law Center, at least in this century, has constituted a conspiracy against the public for ideological fun and profit. It’s an organization that was initially staffed up to fight the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama, or more to the point it was staffed up to raise money purportedly to take up that cause. Except the Ku Klux Klan’s influence in Alabama was already on the wane in 1971 when Julian Bond, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., and Morris Dees started the SPLC. Within a decade, it was an irrelevant organization as to its stated purpose — fighting white supremacists who were keeping black people down in the South. White supremacists haven’t had the power to do that to black people in the south for half a century. Truth be told, it’s mostly been black Democrat politicians, and northern white Democrat politicians, all of whom have assured us of the importance and relevance of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who’ve been most effective in immiserating the black community. But that didn’t mean it wasn’t useful. The Democrats have used the SPLC as a catchall organization for smearing people they disagree with as “extremists,” racists, bigots and cranks. They elevated Dees into some sort of public watchdog protecting civil discourse in this country while he was putting out periodic enemies lists of people and organizations to be shunned by people of good faith. And, for this work, the SPLC was lavishly funded. The list of people smeared by the Southern Poverty Law Center is a who’s-who not of racists but people the Democrat Party doesn’t like. They were put forth as the arbiters of “hate” in American politics. Every news organization wishing to drop hit pieces on conservative politicians, media people, and organizations — Moms For Liberty, a school choice group with a reasonably tame agenda, is a perfect example of a recent SPLC victim — relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s stamp of disapproval in order to cover the Right in defamatory dung. None of this works if the public can’t be sold on the presence of an anti-American political threat from the Right, though. If there are no redneck Hitlers in waiting to scare ordinary Americans straight, then the narrative and the smear begin to fall flat. And that’s why the SPLC spent more than $3 million paying grifters to play-act as “white supremacist” leaders. Without “informants,” which is the cover story for this long-running fraudulent campaign, there would be no raison d’etre for an obsolete organization like the Southern Poverty Law Center, and certainly no justification for affording them the credibility to judge who’s a Nazi and who isn’t. Especially when the Democrats have, since 2009, insisted that it was white supremacist rednecks in the red counties across America who represented the greatest terror threat. Not Antifa communists or transgendered lunatics or Islamist jihadis, who commit actual terrorism with nearly banal regularity, but instead neo-Nazi Neanderthals nobody seems to be able to find. Unless Christopher Wray’s FBI ginned them up, that is. Like, for example, when FBI informants cooked up a fake plot to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer at the height of the COVID panic and ensnared a few local dunces into a heap of legal trouble along with some splashy headlines. And the SPLC was in on that gag. We now know that the Charlottesville debacle of 2017, in which a legitimate protest by regular Americans who thought it was terrible to defenestrate historical landmarks was hijacked by something called the Unite The Right into a tiki-torch-carrying neo-Nazi vigil which led to a riot resulting in injuries and at least one death, was funded at least in part by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That was money invested with some real ROI; when President Trump spoke about Charlottesville and attempted to differentiate between the statue defenders and the neo-Nazis, the SPLC’s media pals played dumb and accused him of defending the Nazis. It was a coup aimed at derailing some of Trump’s growing support in minority communities, and it worked, at least for a while. Was the SPLC involved in stoking the disturbances at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021? Seems like the money didn’t miss it by much, if at all. How much of the rise of Nick Fuentes and other unacceptable types attributed to the American Right (though Fuentes is hardly a reliable conservative voice; increasingly, it’s something akin to political diaper rash emanating from his podcast pie-hole) came out of the SPLC’s bank accounts? Now that the grand jury has decided this is perhaps actionable at law with that indictment in Alabama, perhaps we’ll find out. In the meantime, I’ll be satisfied to know that finally, somebody is willing to do something about one of the most egregious grifts of the century. Let’s call this a very true expression of social justice, if not actual justice on the way. READ MORE by Scott McKay: Mitch Landrieu, Low-Functioning Political Vampire No, You Morons, Iran Has Not ‘Won.’ The Untold Dangers of Ozempic: The Death of Desire

What does it take to run for public office, and why do the best people for the job often decide to quit or avoid the position altogether? (RELATED: Cautionary Tales: What Can November 2025 Teach the GOP About November 2026?)  The Spectacle Podcast hosts Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay explore this question and explain what it takes to be a legislator, and how principled leaders often quit due to the discouragement and scrutiny that takes place. Melissa and Scott highlight traits of successful politicians, such as possessing a certain charisma and having an ego that can bolster a leader through the ranks. They also highlight the terrible qualities that separate a good leader from a bad one, making an example out of New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu. (READ MORE: Mitch Landrieu, Low-Functioning Political Vampire)  Tune in to hear their discussion! Listen to The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Spotify. Watch The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Rumble.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — If you’re getting from Point A to Point B on public streets — whether by car, bus, trolley, subway, bicycle, or foot — there’s a non-zero chance of having a collision. The only way around it is to stay at home on your couch, and even that poses safety risks given the ill health effects of a sedentary lifestyle. The public policy goal should be to make mobility as convenient and safe as possible — not to shut down choices based on hysteria from the occasional mishap. One of the most promising transportation developments comes, not surprisingly, from the private sector. Even as California cities shutter bus routes and subway lines amid their endless budget shortfalls, tech companies have created new and improved ways for us to get around. Although it takes a ride or two to get accustomed to it, driverless taxis have been expanding their footprint in the Bay Area and Southern California. Unfortunately, even the most safety-conscious new ideas are only one idiotic law away from destruction. State Sen. David Cortese, D-San Jose, has introduced Senate Bill 1246, which is a union-backed effort to put the brakes on autonomous vehicles. A statement from an SEIU chapter quotes a member of the California Gig Workers Union: “We want to encourage technology, we want to make our lives easier, we want all that stuff, but we don’t want it at the expense of our community’s safety.” Yet critics see the bill as a transparent job-protection effort given that supporters fail to acknowledge the vast safety potential that comes from wider use of robotaxis. The legislation imposes three main rules, per the Senate analysis. First, it “requires remote assistants, remote drivers, or local incident technicians … be located within the United States.” Second, it “requires the ratio of remote assistants or remote drivers to autonomous passenger service vehicles be one to three or higher at all times.” And, third, it requires “remote drivers or remote assistants are able to immediately respond to all calls … and that local incident technicians are able to respond and be present on the scene within 10 minutes of an accident.” The apparent reason for this “safety” legislation is found in the headlines. Last month, San Francisco officials questioned Waymo officials about citywide power outages in December that left some automated vehicles immobilized — in some cases blocking intersections, buses, and emergency vehicles. First responders had to manually move a number of the vehicles.  That’s a legitimate governmental traffic concern, of course, but the company announced immediate changes that include a system allowing the company to communicate directly with the vehicles and thereby bypass remote assistance. That’s a quick and reasonable fix. (For comparison, can you imagine how long it would take — and the expense to taxpayers — for a public transit system to respond to a similar traffic congestion issue?) Reports about the San Francisco hearing gave the game away. Per ABC 7 Eyewitness News, “Outside, union workers and rideshare drivers rallied against Waymo, raising concerns about job losses and public safety [emphasis added].” Is this about addressing a technological malfunction — or halting a technology that threatens to take away drivers’ jobs? I have a pretty good guess. Another San Francisco story captured national attention last year. A driverless Waymo killed a beloved Mission District cat named Kit Kat, thus sparking protests against the technology. I don’t begrudge neighbors for being upset, but as I noted in my Orange County Register column: “I found research (thank you, AI robots) that cars kill or injure 5.4 million cats a year in the United States, with 5,399,999 coming at the hands of human drivers.… [B]uses and trains — some of Waymo critics’ preferred transportation option — have probably squashed their share of critters.” I love cats, but people are even more important. And the research is crystal clear: Robots are much better drivers than human beings. There are at least 25 traffic deaths in San Francisco each year, all related to non-robot drivers. Nationwide, fatality rates have fallen — but more than 36,000 people were killed in traffic accidents last year. If autonomous vehicles reduce even a percentage of traffic-related deaths and injuries, everyone is better off — and that’s not to mention the value of having an easy way to get around a city. Research from a major reinsurance company in 2024, Swiss Re, examined actual claims and reported that “the Waymo Driver demonstrated better safety performance when compared to human-driven vehicles, with an 88% reduction in property damage claims and 92% reduction in bodily injury claims. In real numbers, across 25.3 million miles, the Waymo Driver was involved in just nine property damage claims and two bodily injury claims.” Now consider that data against Cortese’s hyperbole, per his statement: “The question isn’t whether this technology will move forward — it’s whether we are going to demand it be safe, transparent, and accountable before more people get hurt.” Yet his bill won’t improve safety. It will only slow the development of a rapidly advancing and remarkably safe technology. Expanding a human presence obviously defeats the advantages of autonomous vehicles. As one industry official noted in a recent San Francisco Chronicle article, the companies have built the systems around California’s existing regulations and now lawmakers are changing the ground rules. Per the article, state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, made an important point regarding the bill’s 10-minute response time: “I wish I could get around San Francisco in 10 minutes.” As a frequent visitor there, I can guarantee there are times one can’t get around the block that quickly. Adding unachievable requirements is just legislative mischief. Nevertheless, the bill has passed out of the Senate Transportation and Judiciary committees. There’s no way to avoid all transportation mishaps, but it’s foolhardy to hobble a technology that can vastly reduce deaths and injuries. Or maybe it’s just the California Legislature putting the demands of organized labor above the wellbeing of everybody else. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. READ MORE: FDA Vaping Rules: Much Ado About Very Little As 250th Approaches: Who Is an American? Stop Foreign Censorship Threats Image licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Alex Jones & his legal team have already filed & are planning to file major legal challenges to this attempted high jacking of Infowars & his identity by these Democrat-backed deranged lunatics!

by Geoffrey Grinder, Now The End Begins: Jesus Warned The Last Days Would Mirror The Days Of Noe, And Now Fresh Claims About Noah’s Ark In Turkey Arrive As Another Witness To A World Ripe For Judgment For a generation racing at full speed toward the judgment of God, it is more than a little remarkable […]