Radical Agenda EP279 – Clipzkrieg

It’s just before midnight on Tuesday, and I’m preparing to head back to Keene tomorrow. I hope to be in my studio in time for Wednesday’s show, but I’m beginning to realize it is possible that this won’t happen. So I’m going to do one of my impromptu off hours shows to free myself from that obligation momentarily. On another note, I can’t even log into my spare Facebook account now, so if you could spread this around I’d appreciate it.

Radical Agenda EP279 - Clipzkrieg

Radical Agenda EP279 – Clipzkrieg

It should be a pretty easy one too, since I’ve got all of this great audio to go through from the intelligence committee hearings and Neil Gorsuch’s Senate confirmation hearings. These displays are perhaps some of the greatest examples of liberal contempt for truth and the rule of law in American history.

Take the example of Al Franken grilling Neil Gorsuch about his ruling in a case where a trucker got fired for abandoning his trailer in freezing weather. Gorsuch correctly concluded that there was nothing illegal about the company firing their employee for violating their policies, even if those polices might seem disagreeable to communists like Al Franken. What the law actually says, of course, matters not to Democrats. Leftists, though they love to operate the levers of the State, are anti-authority, and anti-order. The only reason they love the government so much, is because it gives them the power to break the laws the rest of us are compelled to obey.

Tucker Carlson later took on Joe Dinkin of the Working Families Party. If you’re not already aware, the “Working Families Party” has nothing to do with work or families. Instead, they’re a group of welfare recipients who hate marriage. Mr. Dinkin predictably had no knowledge or opinion about the law whatsoever. He just said that Gorsuch was a white supremacist and corporate puppet because he usually rules in favor of property owners, instead of people using the courts to steal from them.

The Senate Intelligence Committee also met with NSA director Michael Rogers and FBI director James Comey to discuss the ridiculous narrative that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to steal the presidency of the United States, as well as Trump’s far more credible allegation that Obama had “wiretapped” him. Comey and Rogers both said they had zero evidence of either, but the Democrats and their media propagandists only seem to find the lack of evidence concerning on one of these stories.

Plus of course, your calls at 747-234-2254 or RadicalAgenda on Skype.

Join us for this special early Wednesday episode of the Radical Agenda at 1:00am Eastern. It’s a show about common sense extremism where we talk about radical, crazy, off the wall things like evidence, and the rule of law.

Listen live on the TuneIn app! Join the chat on YouTube! Got Roku? We’re on there too! Or add the raw stream to your favorite streaming app! Get the podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, Google PlayRoku, RSS, or RadicalAgenda.com.  I’ll also be streaming to UStream and Facebook today.

I keep the lights on here by selling premium memberships, as well as bumper stickers and shirts. I also solicit donations, and encourage you to shop through my affiliate links. Without that support, this show will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • paendragon

    All good points, Chris!

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” pretty-much DEFINES slavery, where makers work for free for lazy takers.

    Re: “Socialism is where the workers own the means of production” – no, it isn’t.

    That’s simply multiple ownership of shared property (whether it be a formal partnership or an employment contract, because, as liberals hate to admit, your time spent on labor is also your own property, as the money your employer trades for your labor time is his property) – and it can depend on contractual inequalities where some of them can get more out of it when they put more into it – and that includes capital investments:

    If I buy a warehouse and a store and the equipment to run them (desks, chairs, cash-registers, etc) and then hire people who haven’t put anything into it, but promise to work for a certain rate, then I’m the owner and they are my employees.

    “Socialism” is extortion which pretends that this contractual relationship is really only in fact slavery, and I’m evil oppressor because I bought the store and hired people, giving them the means to support them selves & their families.

    “Socialism” then gathers a gang of unemployed non-tax-paying and non-property-owning lazy dead-beats to vote in a “government” gang to “redistribute” (steal) my wealth, and give it to them.

    That’s called slanderous extortion, theft, and slavery, and as such, is a crime – albeit a currently “legal” one.

  • Richard Chiu

    It is to me clear enough based on the facts of the case that Alphonse Maddin was not in any significant danger when he chose to unhitch his trailer and leave it by the side of the road in contravention of TransAm’s directions. That assertion is nothing but a red herring to the question of whether Alphonse had a right to use his employer’s property in a manner expressly contrary to their repeated directives for his own convenience.

    To say that he was ‘compelled’ to do so requires that we ignore the fact that Alphonse had a working phone capable of receiving and making calls. It was well within his power, therefore, to call for a ride from a third party, had he deemed it necessary enough to use his own (or public) resources. The case then might have fallen on whether he could be compelled to remain with the tractor/trailer combination in conditions he believed unsafe (though more probably it could not have arisen at all, truck drivers leave their trucks temporarily unattended for reasons of biological necessity all the time). It would also be merely a belief, the repair vehicle dispatched to him by TransAm did in fact arrive well within time to have rendered aid had Mr. Maddin been in real distress. Nor is it plausible that unhitching the trailer and driving to safety would have been accomplished had the operator been in real danger had he remained in the cabin instead.

    The notion that Mr. Maddin was fired for refusing to operate equipment in an unsafe manner or condition is ludicrous, he was fired for deciding it to operate it in a manner that was too unsafe for the comfort of his employers, who owned the equipment in question, contrary to instructions and policy. The fact that they offered him an option which, though also unsafe, was less unsafe than ditching the trailer according to their experience and belief, does not matter. His rejection of this offer does not make it “inextricably intertwined” with abandoning the trailer. Other realistic options which would have been significantly safer than his decided actions had he been in actual danger did exist.

    The fact that the situation arose at all due to his own lack of competence in navigating (both getting lost in the first place and making it harder for the repair vehicle to locate him) is not legally pertinent either way, however it does highlight that his chosen course of action would have been even less certain to alleviate any real danger had it existed.

    The decision in this case was clearly a triumph of appeals to emotion and a victim narrative rather than sound application of the law to the facts at hand. Entirely different facts would have merited a decision finding the employer at fault for issuing unreasonable demands and failing to prioritize the safety of a completely different (and far less incompetent) employee. I have no question that there are many such cases. But Marxist judges have far less sympathy for the plight of competent persons subjected to needless actual danger or injury by heedless bureaucrats.