Movie Franchises & TV Sequels: Are the People Who Program Television Content Complete Morons?!

Look at the pictures above: do you see any problems? If not, look again and check out the program. On May 21, 2024, the M6 channel decided to provide an adrenaline-filled action movie evening with a couple of flicks starring one of Tom Cruise's favorite characters (not to mention one of his favorite airplanes). Except that the French channel started out with the sequel (36 years in the making). Later in the evening — and honestly, admit it, this is one heck of a cryin' shame — Top Gun: Maverick would be followed by the original Top Gun.

Speaking of which: check out how the actors are looking each other in the eyes, ready to shake their heads. If you are going to present a Mummy evening on May 18, 2024, AB3, why not start up the evening with The Mummy Returns before The Mummy?!

Thankfully, sequences are not always out of order. On October 9, 2025, viewers of RTL9 are presented with a triple whammy, Rush Hour, Rush Hour 2, and Rush Hour 3. A couple of weeks later, the station presents the same evening, except this time, the third movie has been lost while some genius has decided to "improve" the concept by putting the sequel ahead of the original film.

It gets better (worse):

On a Saturday in January 2022, RTL9 (channel 1124) decides to present their audiences with an evening — with a night, rather — replete with Jaws movies, the first three in the horror (?) movie franchise.  So which order do they choose? Jaws, Jaws 2, Jaws 3 (technically Jaws 3-D), starting with the Steven Spielberg original, aka the very best of the bunch (of the shiver)? Get outta here! Of course, the Luxembourg channel chooses the opposite order: Jaws 3 first, at 8:55 pm, Jaws 2 next, at 10:35 pm, and finally (when most people have gone to sleep), Jaws 1 — the next day, technically, at 40 minutes past midnight!

Question: after watching the dreadful Jaws 3 (without the 3D), who is going to watch the not-so-entertaining Jaws 2? And after watching the dreadful Jaws 3 and the not-so-entertaining Jaws 2, who (even if it is a Saturday) is going to stay up until 2:30/3:00 in the morning to watch the original Jaws?!

We are starting a new section on this blog: it is called the Are-People-Who-Program-Television-Content-Complete-Morons? Department.

TV Sequels:  Are-people-who-program-television-content-complete-morons Department   

Regularly, a TV station will decide to present a special evening featuring two or more movies in a certain film franchise, whether it be the Die Hard series or the Star Wars films (speaking of which, keep reading to see a couple of the most screwed-up evenings ever). But often, they cannot be bothered to think over what sequence to put the films in for broadcast. And that, when obviously, nothing could be easier, since several movies are named simply by number, say, Taken (i.e., Taken 1), Taken 2, Taken 3, etc…

You would think that a certain number of the people who work in programming departments, whether in the U.S. or abroad, would be fans of Hollywood and have at least a smattering of interest in the movie world (both in California and abroad) — perhaps not at the level of the aficionados in charge of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) — but it turns out that a vast number of them are either totally brainless or do not use said brains at all. (Incidentally, during road trips across the U.S., I remember having to make it a rule never to turn on the TV set in my motel room in the morning, because whatever motion picture was playing on TCM (if that station was available), it would be that hard for me to tear my eyes away from the screen and get going on the road.)

Now, I will grant you this: a lot of these movies are not sequels per se, but standalone movies with the same character(s), so, offhand — in contrast to Top Gun — it may sound like it hardly matters much which Rambo or Jaws or Fast n Furious movie comes before the other.

I don't entirely agree, because there are details in the Rocky movies and in the Die Hard entries and the Taken films that, besides the obvious title (Jaws [1], Jaws 2, Jaws 3-D), do show that one comes before the other. 

Thus, in January 2024, AB3 programmed the two Steven Seagal as Casey Ruback movies, but with Under Siege (Piège en haute mer) following its sequel Under Siege 2 (Dark Territory, Piège à grande vitesse).

In January 2023,  W9 (channel 1122) is treating audiences to two Gerard Butler films, except that the sequel London Has Fallen (2016) is followed by… the original film, Olympus Has Fallen (2013) while Angel Has Fallen (2019) is nowhere to be seen. This does not seem too important, since offhand, and unless I am sorely mistaken, there seems to be no real story line between the films; still, you wonder…

To return to Tom Cruise, wouldn't it be a good idea for 9HD (9) to put the fourth Mission:Impossible film (Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol) on November 16, 2020, ahead of the third (Mission: Impossible III)? /satire

RTL9 wanted to show Crocodile Dundee and its sequel on December 13, 2025. What do you do? Well, put Crocodile Dundee II ahead of Crocodile Dundee, natch!

Having said that, they are details in what constitues an action thriller franchise or a comedy franchise (or both, combined), and I don't disagree that we should be willing to overlook the details.

Now, you may laugh about "character development" in Crocodile Dundee — who nevertheless is married to his co-star in the sequel (as in real life), from beginning to end, while they are getting acquainted and falling in love in the original — or regarding John Rambo, but as far as, notably, his friend Colonel Trautman is concerned, there are important differences between the first three Rambo outings.

If Goldfinger is programmed before From Russia with Love on a James Bond night (as it did one evening on one Danish television channel), ce n'est pas la fin du monde: you can hardly say that they are being cavalier to James Bond 007. On the other hand, how hard is it to put a 2008 movie ahead of its 2012 sequel, instead of vice-versa?

Skyfall presents the ultimate appearance of Judi Dench as M, as the final part of the film shows the villain on a project to mercilessly hunt down and kill both the MI6 honcho (the MI6 honcha?) and Agent 007 at the Bond estate on the Scottish moors, a melodramatic finale if there ever was one. Later on the evening of October 5, 2025, this Bond film is followed on UHD2 by the… previous film, Quantum of Silence, in which Dame Judith Olivia Dench appears as M throughout, alive and well.

How about an evening full of action movies in the "Fortress" series for October 13, 2024, co-starring Bruce Willis? asked the geniuses at NRJ. Great idea! Outstanding! There is just one thing that we are slightly confused about: we wonder which film comes first, Fortress 2 (also known as Fortress: Sniper's Eye) or the one titled simply Fortress?

In February 2021, M6 (channel 4) decided to treat its viewers to a John McClane evening.  What better idea than to show the fifth Bruce Willis film first (A Good Day to Die Hard, co-starring his son), followed by the fourth movie (Live Free or Die Hard, no family members present)?

To put a movie franchise's films in the correct order can hardly be described as hard, though.

In February 2024, AB3 (Antenne Belge 3, channel 1126) scheduled Fast and Furious 4 (Fast & Furious), followed by Fast and Furious 5 (Fast Five). A non-brainer, n'est-ce pas?

After Sniper, announces the UK's Great! Movies (channel 446), you can watch Sniper: Legacy. 

In December 2023, Britain's Channel 4 (channel 403) programmed a Men in Black evening, with Men in Black II following the original Men in Black. In June 2024, they likewise put Men in Black II ahead of Men in Black 3. Straightforward, right?

5Action got the Clint Eastwood and the orangutang (Clyde) films in the right order, as the British channel did with the first four Star Trek movies.

In December 2023, AB3 scheduled a Batman afternoon, with all three films of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy in the correct order: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises. How hard — even without numbers in movie titles (1, 2, 3…) — can this be?!…

You want to get your viewers to feel a rush of adrenaline by showing a series of Fast and the Furious action films? AB3 (Antenne Belge 3) did just that on October 19, 2025, by showing The Fast and the Furious followed, logically enough, by 2 Fast 2 Furious. — just as a year and a half earlier, they had shown Fast and Furious 4 and Fast and Furious 5 (on February 4, 2024), and, one week later, Fast and Furious 6 and Fast and Furious 7.  (From the fourth movie onwards, in French they got tired of trying to find original titles — in contrast to the original titles in English — so they simply gave them the same (English-language) title with the number in the series, from Fast and Furious 4 through Fast and Furious 11 (soon 12).)

How hard can this be?! Plenty hard, it would seem… Two days later, on October 29, 2025, AB3 added three sequels, Fast & Furious 4, Fast & Furious 5, and Fast & Furious 6 — albeit in reverse order!

In Episode 3 of Season 3 of Sherlock, shown on Chérie 25 (channel 1168) on May 8, 2023, a big deal of the plot concerns Dr. Watson's wife, who turns out to be actually a police-trained martial arts fighter, and who, to everyone's surprise, joins in on the action. "Oh, that's interesting," I thought. "I didn't know that Sherlock Holmes's companion had gotten married". (I knew it from the books, where she is barely mentioned, but not from this modern-day TV series.) Which episode immediately follows Episode 3 (His Last Vow)? Episode… 2 (The Sign of Three), in which we witness the… wedding of John Watson to the new Mrs. Watson.

But it ain't just about action films. On October 22, 2025, AB3 decides to have a Back to the Future evening. They ignore the (beloved) original and place Back to the Future Part III ahead of Back to the Future Part II. 

How about an evening showing two comedies in the famed UK series starring Renée Zellweger? was the question asked at France's W9 outlet (channel 1122) on May 25, 2025. Wouldn't that be fun?! 

But of course, let's show some originality and present the 2004 sequel (Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason) ahead of the original 2001 movie (Bridget Jones's Diary). Needless to say, in the first film (and in the book), the central character is torn between two suitors and the whole question for the audience member (or for the reader) is which of them will she end up with; the sequel showing her living, however awkwardly, with the "winner" of the first film. Is there any reason, any at all, to show the sequel before the original?!

How about Alistair MacLean's Navarone books? On September 22, 2024, Paris Première decided to put Force 10 from Navarone (1978) ahead of the initial film, The Guns of Navarone (1961). 

Speaking of Harrison Ford, we have kept la crème de la crème for the end.

Can the Monaco people at Télé Monte Carlo be said to be hardcore Star Wars fans? You have to wonder… 

Several times, the TMC channel has decided to treat audiences to an evening of Star Wars films, except that there is never any trilogy, only two films per evening. What's more, in the most recent case that I know of, the second sequel, The Return of the Jedi (Episode 6), is followed by… the first sequel, The Empire Strikes Back (Episode 5) while A New Hope (Episode 4, George Lucas's original Lucasfilm movie) is not shown at all. (Notice how one film is referred to as "Star Wars Episode…" while the other is not…) Do you not happen to know that there is one heck of a spoiler at the end of The Empire Strikes Back involving a certain Darth Vader revealing a deep secret to his… I mean, to Luke Skywalker — possibly the most, or one of the most, famous spoilers in the history of cinema?! Probably very few people do not know about its content by now, but in any case, how on earth does it make sense, to show The Return of the Jedi first?!

Earlier that month, TMC again presented another trilogy, the first one, with, again, only two films, Star Wars Episode II (Attack of the Clones) ahead of Star Wars Episode I (The Phantom Menace).  By this time, of course, les Monégasques were used to these mindless shenanigans, as on Nov 16, 2020, they had also presented only two films of the first trilogy, with Star Wars Episode III (Revenge of the Sith) ahead of Star Wars Episode II (Attack of the Clones).

Not all of the broadcasters mentioned here are French-speaking but, still, how do French TV programmers do with their own nation's fare? Are they less flippant? More respectful? Sometimes, as with the spy parody, Le Grand Blond avec une chaussure Noire (remade in America as The Man with One Red Shoe) and its sequel.

Likewise, on March 27, 2025, M6 showed Papa ou Maman and its sequel in the correct sequence. That was better than W9 a year earlier, when Papa ou Maman 2 was shown on May 21, 2024. Which movie do you think followed the comedy sequel about kids of divorcees forced to choose between "daddy or mommy"? You guessed it: the original Papa ou Maman (1).

TFX decides to hold a Ducobu evening, a series of film based on a comic book of a young teenager's misadventures in school. Instead of starting with the film that introduces us all to the bande dessinée comedy star and to its other set of characters (L'Élève Ducobu), it decides to broadcast that first entry after its first sequel (Les Vacances de Ducobu). Eight months later, it presents the second movie again, this time preceded by the… third entry in the series (Ducobu 3).

Let's fill our audiences with humor and hilarity tonight, said the people at W9 on October 27, 2024. By choosing the comedies starring the hero created by Sempé and René Goscinny, Le Petit Nicolas. (In Denmark, a number of kids learning French did so by studying these hilarious short stories in school.) To confuse our audience, let us start the evening with the 2014 sequel (Les vacances du Petit Nicolas) and end it with the original 2009 movie (Le Petit Nicolas).

But surely TV executives cannot make any mistakes with the classics?! Let's fill our audiences with humor and hilarity tonight, said the honchos at 6Ter on August 14, 2024: By showing two Louis de Funès gems in what is arguably France's most beloved comedy series of all time. But having all the films seared in just about every Frenchman's consciousness — with the series taking, logically enough, the name of the very first film, Le Gendarme de Saint-Tropez — doesn't mean that the people at 6Ter (1127) can figure out whether Le Gendarme de Saint-Tropez goes before or after Le Gendarme à New York.  But wait! the people at 6Ter aren't finished! A week after the second film is shown ahead of the first film, the second film is shown again on August 21, but this time preceded by… the third entry (Le Gendarme se marie).

Produced by Luc Besson, Banlieue 13 was a 2004 hit which lead to a sequel five years later. When TF1 showed the two movies on June 22, 2025, naturally they put the Ultimatum sequel ahead of the original film.

Iin 2008, Jean-François Richet decides to make a two-part biographical movie filmed together on a(n in)famous real-life gangster. The first part is called L'Instinct de mort (Killer Instinct) and details Jacques Mesrine's violent life from 1959 to 1972 when he is an unknown but is rising to prominence (or to infamy). By then, indeed, he is a cop killer who has become Public Enemy # 1, which is, appropriately enough, the title of the second part, lasting from 1972 to his demise, Bonnie and Clyde-like, in a hail of bullets during a 1979 ambush by the police (his girlfriend was hit during the shoot-out but survived). According to Wikipedia, the film starring Vincent Cassel, both of which were released in 2008 — only one month apart — has earned comparisons to Scarface. 

By now, reader, you know what's coming, right? Yup: What happens when Radio Monte Carlo's RMC Story — a Monaco channel which prides itself on only touching upon real-life stories — decides to show both parts on the night of December 3, 2025? You guessed it: In what must have been grating for director Richet and actually made him go berserk — they show the two parts in the wrong sequence. 

For what it's worth: On November 16, 2020, incidentally, we had a holy trifecta, with three consecutive channels (8, 9, & 10) all showing sequels out of order.

Contrary to the impression given in Brussels, the peoples of Europe do not need any malign American interference by Trump to turn them against their leaders

There has been much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent scathing criticisms of Europe’s “weak” leaders and the danger of “civilisational erasure” on the continent 

writes Mick Hume at The European Conservative (merci à Vincent Bourdonneau), where he points out that Europeans May Not Love Trump—but Many Agree With Him.

Trump has been branded anti-European. But if that was true, then surely millions of European citizens must also be considered “anti-European.” Because they are voting for political parties and supporting protest movements which make strikingly similar criticisms of the EU regime.

Take the Trump administration’s controversial new National Security Strategy, which has been condemned as a work of imperial interference in European affairs.  

The document argues that “the European Union and other transnational bodies” are working to “undermine political liberty and sovereignty”; observes that Europe’s mass immigration policies “are transforming the continent and creating strife”; and identifies problems such as “censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.”

Sound familiar? These are the sort of fundamental criticisms of the Brussels elite and their works that we commonly hear from national conservative parties across Europe. They form the basis of policies that are now supported by millions of patriots in European nations.

Contrary to the impression given in Brussels, the peoples of Europe do not need any malign American interference to turn them against their leaders. They can see for themselves that national sovereignty, democracy and free speech are under attack from the EU centre, and that uncontrolled immigration is transforming their societies for the worse. 

That’s why people across Europe have been voting in increasing numbers for insurgent national conservative parties—not because of what Trump or anybody else says, but because of what their rulers have done to European society, culture, and civilisation.

 … Does anybody really imagine it is outrageous to suggest that top European leaders are weak, ineffective, and obsessed with making politically correct gestures?  

 … President Trump’s more idiotic critics in America and Europe like to accuse him of ruling like “a King,” ignoring the fact that—unlike many of the most powerful people in Brussels—he was democratically elected with a mandate to implement the very policies he is pursuing.

In this instance, “King” Donald looks rather more like the truth-telling boy in the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, who says what everybody can see and shouts out that the Emperor has no clothes. In publicly exposing the dangerous ideologies and actions of the European elites, he has given a presidential voice to what many rank-and-file voters are thinking.

 … The truth is that Donald Trump is neither the cause of Europe’s problems nor the solution. Europe must resolve its own civilisational crisis. But that will not be possible while it is ruled by an EU elite that does not believe in the democratic civilisation it claims to lead.

Speaking of Hans Christian Andersen, as I wrote last year, regarding

Donald Trump's mean tweets, along with his (alleged) "petty insults and his dark obsessions" — they are only mean in that they describe exactly the kind of people that he sees on the Left. Just like the boy at the end of The Emperor's New Clothes. After the boy's outburst, according to what Hans Christian Andersen seems to have expected, the boy and all the bystanders in the streets ought to have referred to the tailors as scam artists and to their ruler the emperor (in the original Danish, he is a king) as some variant of a fool. 

Alas, as Winston Churchill wrote, "Men [and women] occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." 

In real life, according to modern-day Western mores and thanks to the eggings-on, overt and other, of the tailors themselves and the scam artists' (willing or not) allies and sympathizers, the boy was probably vilified as a "tailorphobe" and canceled for daring to have the gall of engaging in hate speech and other types of hate-filled rhetoric.

Winning the AI race against China is one thing; But winning the AI race for all Americans is no less important, and indeed an altogether under-discussed issue

Sébastien Laye (beard) celebrates the publication of his book with the blogger of No Pasarán

While it is pretty much certain that at some point [artificial intelligence] will bring about new innovations and eliminate entire categories of problems faced by humanity, suffice it to say that at the moment, it is still an automation tool.

Thus writes ROF's Sébastien Laye in his Washington Examiner column, AI should be a first-tier public policy issue.

Like with all general-purpose technologies, in a first sequence, AI is already affecting employment — junior roles are being replaced, weakening intergenerational training and reducing opportunities for skill transmission within professions. As this new technology dramatically lowers costs, there is a clear path for higher corporate margins, hence the frothy stock market despite a more muted general macroeconomic environment, but no clear short-term mechanism to manage the transition for most people, notwithstanding reskilling and training.

AI AND THE DEATH OF MACROECONOMICS AS WE KNEW IT

It feels similar to when the United States accepted China into the World Trade Organization or signed the North American Free Trade Agreement: Costs went down, but the disruption was real. Over the short term, AI might have a comparable impact for the average U.S. citizen.

When it comes to public policies, AI is indeed all over the news, as the Trump administration is pushing an ambitious Promethean agenda and a form of techno-nationalism inspired by China but more private-market-oriented. With the exception of the Genesis Mission, modest in funding, the AI revolution is essentially funded by the private sector, Silicon Valley upstarts, Big Tech, and Wall Street.

 … As the edifice of established paradigms begins to fracture under the weight of AI, it becomes imperative to interrogate governments and administrations. Winning the AI race against China is one thing. But winning the race for all Americans is no less important, and an altogether underdiscussed issue.

"A Terrorist Ideology": For a 24-Minute TV Debate on Australia's Bondi Beach Massacre, It Takes 10 Minutes Before Mentioning the Fact that the Terrorists Are Muslim

Late on Sunday night, Isaac Barchichat joined an LCI discussion group for a 2-hour TV debate regarding the latest news reports. 

Prior to the ROF vice-president joining the guests on Darius Rochebin's TV show (from 1:13:07 to 1:54:17), the group discussed such things as the Bondi beach terrorist attacks (0:05) along with the Ukraine war and the Berlin summit (24:36). (Merci à Sarah pour le hyperlien.)

Regarding the 24 minutes devoted to the Bondi Beach attack: Not until ten minutes in does somebody mention that the two shooters are Muslim (10:00). Prior to that, everybody was blabbering about the father-son combo, Neo-Nazi right-wingers, and "a terrorist ideology" in which "individuals are submerged" (9:44, sounds quite like Ilhan Omar describing 9-11 as the day that "some people did something"), while the existence of guns and gun rights were, needless to say, condemned. And when the subject of Islam is finally breached, it's by two guests feeling the need to state that "Muslims are the primary victims" of Islamist violence.

Here's Paul Reen's reaction to the full two-hour show: after appearing at the 1:13:07 mark,

Isaac … does a great job of framing the argument in support of Trumps peace-through-strength efforts and how Europe has no effective leader and continues to act in an unserious manner to end the war. 

The usual Trump skeptics on the set had no choice but to agree with him. When Fenwick complains about Trump considering lifting the ban on underground nuclear tests, Isaac then hits them with the truth, that Trump's strength is a reflection of Europe’s leaderless weakness and also will no longer be Europe's protector. This reality scares them and they have to state that they don’t want US to be their “boss” but Isaac reminds them that the head of NATO still calls Trump "Daddy" — that was hilarious. He continued to defend Trump's view of Europe in his Securuty Strategy memo discussed at the end of the show. Bravo Isaac!

(for those that can stand to listen, the first part of the show talks about Sydney and notice that it takes them a full 10-12 min before they’re able to even say the word « Muslims ». Before then they even mention white supremacist threats to the Jewish and of course the problem of guns).

LCI's discussion group:

Le 22h Rochebin du dimanche 14 décembre 2025

Publié hier à 0h00

Au sommaire : Attentat à Sydney : quinze morts, un assaillant tué. Essai nucléaire souterrain : 

Trump lève le moratoire. Puissance militaire : la Chine dame le pion aux USA ?

"Move on" — Eyes front and STFU: In 60 years Joe Biden's 2020 Election Steal story will finally "break"

The information in the two memes above and below the present one-sentence paragraph help explain why I wrote The January 6 Protest Summarized in One Single Sentence, as well as American Thinker's Let's Stop Using the Words "Trump Tried to Overturn the 2020 Election" (It's Unprofessional Journalism). 

Never one to forget — as news of the Joe Biden Presidential Library prove extremely problematic (to use a well-worn Leftist term) — Damian Bennett has picked up the tomahawk and gone on the warpath again:

… the Biden zero-funded Presidential Library's … funding woes reveal just how completely Biden has been turned out and kicked to the curb by his pals and kingmakers. Biden was never destined for greatness. He has always been a small incapable man aching to be an accomplished big man. It is telling that money, high office, state propaganda, and the Dark Blue Powers could not save Biden from being Biden.

A year of Trump has made it easy to forget four awful years of Biden. So it is instructive to remind ourselves just how Biden improbably came to be installed as a president. In any review two things jump out immediately: Biden was never mentally fit for office, and he was never popular enough to pull 80M+ votes.

• Bizarre Moment Joe Biden BITES His Wife Jill's Finger During A Campaign Stop In Iowa December 1, 2019
• Biden Plays To 98 In Iowa December 21, 2019
• DNC Viewership Disaster: Less Than Half Tune In To Watch Democratic Convention Compared To 2016 August 18, 2020
• Lonely Joe — Not A Single Person Showed Up To Biden/Harris Event In Arizona October 12, 2020
• JOE BIDEN: “I’ll lead an effective strategy to mobilize trunalimunumaprzure!” October 30, 2020
• How Biden Defied History At Every Turn To Win January 1, 2021
  ['Defy' is not the word. 'Cheat' is the word.]
• The Secret History Of THE SHADOW CAMPAIGN THAT SAVED THE 2020 ELECTION February 4, 2021
  [T]he participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.

The 'fortifying' actually happened. Joe Biden went on to bring his not-there Chauncey Gardiner revue to the White House. And the hard sell was sold hard.

• Joe Scarborough: 'F-You' If You Don't Believe This Is The Best Biden Ever March 6, 2024
  Scarborough: "But comparing that guy's mental state -- I've said it for years now: he's cogent. But I undersold him when I said he was cogent. He's far beyond cogent. ... Start your tape right now, because I'm about to tell you the truth. And f-you if you can't handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close second. And I've known him for years. ... If it weren't the truth, I wouldn't say it."
• Obama: Biden Is One Of Country's 'Most Consequential Presidents' July 21, 2024
• Pelosi Hails Biden As 'One Of The Most Consequential' U.S. Presidents July 21, 2024
• Pelosi: President Biden Should Be Added To Mt. Rushmore August 4, 2024
• Clyburn: Biden Will ‘Go Down As One Of The Greatest Presidents We Ever Had’ January 16, 2025
• The Conversation: Could Joe Biden Be The Most Consequential American President Of Our Times? February 23, 2023
  

Also The Conversation:

• The Conversation: Joe Biden’s Presidency Will Be Remembered As One That Did Not Match The Times, And A Leader Who Failed To Realise It January 17, 2025

Truth will out.

July 23, 2024

Which brings us round to the main event:

Shocker: NOBODY Is Contributing To Build A Biden Library December 13, 2025

Buh-, buh-, but...

• Byron York On X December 13, 2025: From @nytimes: 'Biden Has Raised Little of What He Needs to Build a Presidential Library.' Raised exactly $0 in new donations in all of 2024.

Will a Biden library ever be built? Big-money fundraising is punishing work. The most effective fundraiser for a presidential library is a president rattling his begging bowl. Biden is 82, has the vigor of a man twice his age, does not inspire the closed wallet to open, and has near nothing to offer by way of political ROI. No doubt the Dark Blue Powers will cobble something together to save face...

...but nothing comparable to Obama's massive $850M+ ego in concrete.

• Sean Davis On X December 13, 2025: Couldn’t raise a dime for his library, but definitely received 82 million votes.
  • George Papadopoulos On X November 27, 2020: Joe Biden had “80 million votes” yet only 1200 people tuned in to his thanksgiving stream address
  • “The Most Bizarre Scene You Ever Saw In Your Life” “Dystopian” New Video Of Biden’s Inauguration, Cold Eerie Silence, Emptiness, Troops Nearly Only People In Attendance January 24, 2021

• • 

The truth is Biden was never elected president. Never. NEVER EVER. The table-setting for the 2020 Steal was done in plain sight:

• It's Begun: Media Start Predicting A Biden 'Landslide' -- Just Like [Clinton Landslide] Four Years Ago October 13, 2020
• Explainer: Red Mirage, Blue Mirage: Beware Of Early U.S. Election Wins (Reuters) November 3, 2020

However various plans were long in the works...

• Here's How Google Can Shift 15 Million Votes Without Anyone Realizing It November 1, 2020
• Get Smart About What Really Happened In The 2020 Election October 21 2021
• The Flood Of Stunning New Evidence That J6 Was A Fedsurrection Can't Be Ignored November 10, 2025
• Mike Benz: Why I Think The J6 Fedsurrection Was Planned At This Secret Meeting In June 2020 December 7, 2025
  [I recommend viewing this (longish, occasionally fractured) Mike Benz exposé. The truth is all the N3 2020 & J6 2021 evidential pieces are known, but whereas Democrats could stage an elaborate multimillion dollar slickly produced J6 minidrama without evidence, the Republicans are now running the show, which means all the damns and indictments will die in committee.]

...and everything came together election night 2020...

• Results Still Unclear And 5 Other Takeaways From Election Night 2020 (NPR) November 4, 2020
• No matter what happens, this isn't the blowout Democrats were looking for
• The 2020 Election: Fuckery Is Afoot November 5, 2020
• The 2020 Election: The More Fuckery Update November 9, 2020
• "It Defies Logic": Scientist Finds Telltale Signs Of Election Fraud After Analyzing Mail-In Ballot Data November 9, 2020
• MIT Scientist Offers Proof Computer Algorithm Likely Transferred 69,000 Votes From Trump To Biden In Michigan November 11, 2020
• 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms November 23, 2020

...and elections have consequences, oh my yes, Biden 'healing' was hot for consequences...

• Totalitarian Left Promises Purges And Punishment For All Trump Voters November 10, 2020
• Rashida Tlaib (MI-D): I Don't Want the Kind of 'Unity' Moderate Dems Are Talking About November 11, 2020
• ABC News Political Director Calls For Cleansing Of Trump Voters January 7, 2021
• PBS Top Lawyer Says Gov Should Build ‘Enlightenment Camps’ And Remove Children From Trump Supporting Homes January 13, 2021
• "They Came For Me, They Can Come For You" - Former Trump Adviser Peter Navarro Reports To Prison March 19, 2024

...and the prize 'consequence' of all time!

 August 23, 2023

• Donald Trump And 18 Co-Defendants Indicted On 41 Charges August 14, 2023
  
• Donald Trump To Surrender In Georgia Election Fraud Case August 24, 2023

In 60 years the 2020 Election Steal story will finally 'break'. It will glide from disputed snippets of conspiracy into a body of established facts; the historical record will be scandalized but corrected. The guilty, the Judases will be snug in the grave unindicted. The truth will out, and another iteration of MoveOn.com will materialize to tell all to 'move on', that is, eyes front and STFU. Please. Yes, they will say 'please', and we will point triumphant to the politesse and call it a day. But they will be back tenfold, uglier, more hateful, more dishonest (if such is possible) than ever.

Related: 
• One Week Before the 2020 Election, the New Yorker Mentioned the 25th Amendment — But Only for Donald Trump; With Joe Biden, There Is Nothing to Fear 
• Why We Hate The 'News Media' — a thorough accounting of the propaganda machine 
• No, the “greatest threat to democracy” is not MAGA Republicans; the true and actual threat to democracy is the Biden Administration and the Democrat Party 
• In 2024, An iffy 2020 steal repeat is in the works: Dark Powers are all stops out — lawfare, assassination, propaganda, censorship, fraud, cash payouts — to prevent Trump 47 
• If Biden Had a High Cancer Score While in the White House, Shouldn't He Have Had Surgery (a Biopsy) Under Anesthesia? Does Anybody Ever Remember Him Handing Over Authority to Kamala?  

And, of course:

• The January 6 Protest Summarized in One Single Sentence
• American Thinker's Let's Stop Using the Words "Trump Tried to Overturn the 2020 Election" (It's Unprofessional Journalism).  

 

"Reaping What You Sow"?! Did Charlie Kirk Really Deserve His Fate Due to His "Insensitive" Declarations in Favor of the "Repulsive" 2nd Amendment? (Includes the Full "Controversial" Text & Video)

If there is one historical quote that could be used in every single post of this blog for the past 21 years, it is that of a French writer who traveled through America two centuries ago: 

It is easier for the world to accept
a simple lie than a complex truth
— Alexis de Tocqueville  

That also applies in the present post addressing the Left's contention that Charlie Kirk "had it coming" due to his "insensitive" declarations in favor of that "repulsive" Second Amendment (the full quote and the full context, including the omitted parts, are at the very end of this post) — such as (in the words of Fox's Hanna Panreck) Far-left podcast host Jennifer Welch [claiming] Charlie Kirk 'justified' his own death. 

Far-left podcast host Jennifer Welch claimed on her show Saturday that Charlie Kirk "justified" his own killing, reacting to a clip of his widow, Erika Kirk, condemning people for mocking or rationalizing his assassination.

"The person that I heard that justified his death was him," Welch said. "He’s the one that said on tape that if school kids die, but it means he gets to have a Second Amendment, then that’s what it’s going to be. He’s the one that justified it."

"And I believe at the time of shooting, he was talking about gun violence at the time. That’s wild to me, number one. And then for her — I want to get your opinion on this as a Black man — for her to say that people are dehumanizing Charlie Kirk," Welch told former CNN host Don Lemon on her "I've Had It" podcast.

I would like to start with a question for those, foreign as well as American — not a few of them among my social media contacts — making jokes about, laughing about, or otherwise celebrating the Charlie Kirk assassination: 

Besides the fact that your attitude is heinous, how — how on Earth — do you propose to convince a sizable of citizens in future elections — not just Republicans but also Independents and even your own fellow Leftists (Democrats, Socialist Democrats, outright Communists, etc) — that a would-be leader supported by somebody like yourself (by somebody as childish and as vile as yourself) deserves to be elected to office and be put in charge of the well-being and the welfare of the country and its population?!

Incidentally, I will add that I am not in favor of Elon Musk taking down these videos on X/Twitter — I think that all people should know exactly the childish, the wicked, and the abhorrent attitudes of the "tolerant" locofocos on the Left.

In that perspective, I will add a message to those — again, foreign as well as American — who seem (slightly) less partisan and more thoughtful, "simply" calling the founder of TPUSA (or his speeches) hateful. As many others have pointed out, if you call Charlie Kirk odious and the perpetrator of hate speech — the epitome of a conservative seeking an honest debate — then there is no hope for what you claim to seek, a bridge to connect with any of you. 

Because, yes leftists, it ain't just Charlie: that is misleading others — as well as yourselves! Check out this recent post: Charlie Kirk or Andrew Breitbart? "Good! Fuck him. I couldn’t be happier that he’s dead.” (Blast from the past (2012): The Left has "established this notion that, somehow, it's impolite to call them on their bullshit").

In addition, your homilies about a "divided America" — when Charlie Kirk did nothing but try to engage in dignified debate with you and, indeed, try to unify America — are nothing but a deliberately passive description of a rift that is entirely caused by you yourselves and by your (by the postmodern left's) own pedantic didacticism and depravity.

Furthermore, be sure to read the post "My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans; Zero clue." Robert Sterling's "long rant" on X Twitter is without the shadow of a doubt the single best article that I have seen on the Charlie Kirk assassination since the tragedy in question. 

Related: RIP Charlie Kirk — This Is What Is Bound to Happen When You Constantly Refer to Your Adversaries as "Fascists" and as "Threats to Democracy"  

• Charlie Kirk and the Glorification of Terrorism: "broadcast outlets did their best to hide the obvious connection between the shooter and the left’s obsession that everyone on the right is 'fascist'"

Via Powerline

1) Two Basic Attitudes of Liberals That They Are Totally Oblivious About

Let us examine the holding that Charlie Kirk deserved to die because of his statements. One in particular stands out: The speech claimed to be the most controversial is that in which he is described as allegedly ignorant or uncaring about the country's murder rate, specifically school shootings of kids.

"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." 

As usual, with the Left, it can only be described as a lie: they omit the entire context, which ends by addressing the very school shootings that CK was supposed to be criminally ignorant and/or repulsively uncaring about. (This will be examined in detail at the end of this post.)

Having said that: has it occurred to you that, first of all, you are engaging in superstition? You people of the Left don't believe in religion, you claim, and you instead prefer rationality — pure rationality. Then in the very next breath, the drama queens that you are claim that some so-called invisible force in the universe — whether it is (some type of) God or karma or whatever — that, like a deity from a pagan religion, unleashes his (or her) wrath on people and reigns down injustice on evil capitalists (see also 9-11 and Gaia and tsunamis along with various other natural catastrophes).

A more general observation about karma (and superstition) is the extent to which the charge proves too often to be remarkably one-sided and the source of double standards. For instance, when Canadians vowed to boycott U.S. products because of Donald Trump's controversial comments about their country last winter, leftists and anti-Americans the world over cheered, saying that the conservative Yankee president was getting his just desserts. Now that populations the world over, not least the Canadians, are holding memorials for a conservative Yank — even singing America's national anthem! — the karma aspect is suddenly nowhere to be seen. 

Second of all, ask yourselves this, Leftists: what are we doing, exactly, by pursuing this line of thought?

Think about it…

Aren't you validating the need for the… very Second Amendment that a certain… Charlie Kirk defended?!

There are millions of people who, rightly or wrongly, hold the same opinions and viewpoints as the husband of Erika Kirk. If you say that the founder of TPUSA deserved to die, then millions of other Americans presumably also deserve to die — by being gunned down or by any other means. Well, guess what: since we disagree with you (rather vehemently) about this, I would suggest that this makes our desire for weaponry rather more rational than (as you claim) irrational. Indeed, if one of you were to (God forbid) be elevated to a position of power in this country, how — how on earth — are we to trust you to be in any way benevolent towards us (i.e., towards that part of the population that does not agree with you)?!

In any case, your attitude about karma proves nothing less than — get this — the very necessity of private citizens to own and bear arms. 

Related: How Can a Democrat Work for "All the People" If He or She Wants Half of Them Shot in the Head?!

Via Powerline

2) Mass Shootings That the MSM Never Covers

But the Left is ignoring (and the mainstream media never covers) the numerous instances of mass shootings where only two or three people died. (And for the sake of brevity, let's not get into the many instances of killings that the MSM refrains from covering because they don't further the Left's narratives — see, e.g., Iryna Zarutska.) And here you are bound to ask:  If only two or three people were killed, why should the media, American or foreign, cover it? 

And, besides: why would anyone call it a "mass shooting" in the first place? 

Because the "mass" part of the shooting was prevented by an armed citizen (aka "a good guy with a gun") who subdued and neutralized the shooter (either by killing him outright or by holding him in check).

Think of another mass shooting unreported in America and across the globe, the one in December 2019 where only three people were killed in Texas. Hold on, you ask: Three people? Certainly a tragedy, but why, then, call the West Freeway Church of Christ event a "mass" shooting? Well, because that low figure was due only to one parishioner pulling out his weapon and gunning down the (would-be) mass shootist. Jack Wilson is what we call "a good guy with a gun." 

In May 2022, a West Virginia woman legally carrying a handgun stopped a mass shooter in his tracks, saving lives in the process. So, in this case, the good guy with a gun was a woman.    

In the comments section of a Herschel Smith piece, a person named David writes that 

The other factor here is when a concealed carry holder intervenes it often means the number of victims is not as high as waiting for police. In that situation it doesn’t make the list of “mass shootings”.

I saw another analysis that said if you look at just the incidents that don’t occur in gun-free zones, 46% of mass shootings end because of intervention by a civilians.

As for Gary Griffiths, he goes on to note to what extent the logic is skewered (bold and italics by myself):

Part of the problem is, it is impossible for an armed citizen to stop a mass shooting. Here’s why: If the shooter is stopped before three victims are shot, it is, by definition, not a mass shooting. If the shooter is not stopped before three victims are shot, then by definition, the citizen did not stop the mass shooting. Liberal logic at it’s finest!

Indeed, writes Walter Ronten,

How many mass shootings did NOT happen because of someone with a legal firearm? How many crimes and of what kind prevented by someone with a legal firearm - if they only threaten to use it and do not shoot? Police/FBI do not keep any statistics on this, but the NRA publishes a page full of such incidents every month in their magazine.

Actually, the FBI did try — once (during the previous administration) — to reveal How Many Active Shooters Were Stopped by Citizens, although it was under-reported. The Spectator USA adds that

Events like this one happen every day in America, but because they don’t fit the narrative of liberal gun control activists, they rarely get the attention mass shootings do. Instead of advocating for ways by which citizens can empower themselves, rather than wait around as sitting ducks for the police to show up, the left-wing media habitually uses tragic events as a political platform by which to trumpet for more gun control. Stories of armed citizens brandishing their weapons to deter a criminal are also not as sensational as a mass gunman killing innocent people, and, to borrow an analogy from crime prevention researcher John Lott, “Airplane crashes get news coverage, while successful take-offs and landings do not.”

An Armed Society Might Not Be a Polite Society, writes Rick Moran, but It's Definitely More Dangerous for Criminals. Responding in turn to CNN and the AP, Rick Moran points out that

An armed civilian doesn’t have to fire his weapon to stop a tragedy. Many shootings or mass shootings have been prevented by an armed citizen brandishing a weapon or simply revealing it to someone threatening others. No shots were fired. There was no need. This is far more common and just as heroic as the actions taken by Mr. Dicken.

Reason's Josh Blackman joins the discussion with The Good Samaritan With A Gun In Indiana Serves To Refute Four Common Gun Control Myths.

3) Wouldn't Gun Control, European-Style, End Shootings in the First Place? 

But all of this hardly addresses the call to imitate Europe and the contention that with gun control of the European type, there would be no shootings, and certainly no mass shootings, to begin with.

On May 25, 2022, I was on a train to Switzerland that morning when I was called back to Paris to participate in a debate on the BFMTV channel after the atrocious Uvalde school shooting.

That evening, naturally, I was the first guest asked to speak, in response to the question, "shouldn't Americans change their views on the 2nd Amendment?" or on the free sale of firearms, a question that they didn't think any person could answer other than Yes.

I responded as follows (slightly redacted):

Every time there is a shooting, we are told — both by Europeans and by Democrats in America — that these American neanderthals ought to imitate the rational Europeans, and notably they are told that they ought to imitate those nice countries like the ones in Scandinavia, a country like Denmark or Norway — Norway, where in 2011, a person gunned down 77 people, most of them teen-agers. Therefore, European-type legislation, i.e., gun control, did nothing to save the children of Utøya.

 
Then I went on to try to ask a question, indeed two questions:  Wouldn't it have been a good thing if someone on the Oslo island had had a gun and shot back at Anders Breivik (perhaps not to kill him, but at the very least to get him to seek cover, thereby interrupting his killing spree)? Furthermore — to take on a different progressive talking point — didn't Breivik deserve the death penalty?

All of which was an expansion of what I wrote in my response to a New York Times gun control editorial ten years ago:

    It is easy for leftists, American as well as foreign, to tout the success of the gun control laws in the rest of the Western world … when you (deliberately or otherwise) ignore:

   the 1996 massacre of 16 children at a Scottish primary school; the 2000 killing of eight kids in Japan; the 2002 deaths of eight people in Nanterre, France; the 2002 killing of 16 kids in Erfurt, Germany; the 2007 shootings to death of eight people in Tuusula, Finland; the killing of 10 people at a Finnish university less than a year later; the 2009 killing of 15 people in Winnenden, Germany; and, needless to say, Anders Breivik's 2011 mass murder of 77 Norwegians, most of them teenagers.

   Is it unreasonable (or perhaps politically incorrect) to wonder whether the death tolls might have been lower in any of those places — or in the Bataclan concert hall in 2015 (137 dead) — had a few of the adults (or some of the eldest teens) carried a weapon and tried to shoot back at the respective killers? 

Furthermore — as I wrote in the introduction to my in-depth (and dispassionate) study on the issue of gun control — 

In the 18th century — the century at the end of which the Second Amendment was being passed in the newly-born United States — the biggest problem for the majority of the world's population was not the right to keep and bear arms.

It was the lack of the right to keep and bear arms.

In the 19th century, likewise, the greatest problem for most people on this planet was not the absence of gun control.

It was the presence of gun control.

In the 20th century, most people did not suffer from the right to keep and bear arms.

They suffered from the lack of the right to keep and bear arms.

As can be attested by the victims (assuming they could talk) of the likes of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Milosevic, along with the Hutus… As an aside, one of the first measures taken by each of the aforementioned (ahem) leaders after coming to power — for the good of the people, needless to say — was to impose or to tighten arms control.

And it is no different today.

Look at Saddam's Iraq, at Khadaffi's Libya, at the Assads' Syria…

(Would not the average Iraqi citizen, the average Libyan citizen, the average Syrian citizen over the past 30 to 40 years have been better off with the right to keep and bear arms?) 

And all of this brings us back, full circle, to Charlie Kirk's "controversial" statement, with locofocos and fire-eaters falling over themselves and going ballistic with regards to school shootings — which he is accused of (carelessly) ignoring or (despicably) minimizing. Except that his reply is far less controversial if you take the TPUSA founder's full reply (tak til Thomas Petersen) into context, not least the issue of school shootings, the most important part of which he addresses forthrightly in his conclusion, notably the final paragraph's final sentence (duly emboldened below + video at very bottom of this post):

Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?

Related:

• An in-depth (and dispassionate) study of the issue of gun control: Does the Blame Lie with the Right to Bear Arms Or Can It Be Found Elsewhere? (13-year-old post, but still entirely pertinent and duly and regularly updated along the years)
• T'is easy to tout the success of gun control laws in the rest of the Western world when you ignore certain pertinent facts from Europe
• Passing expanded background checks after a school shooting is tantamount to demanding stricter drivers tests after a hit and run 
• Mourning "all lives lost to gun violence" is like calling the people murdered on 9/11 victims of “airplane violence” 
• FBI Reveals How Many Active Shooters Were Stopped by Citizens (via Stephen Green)
• In View of the Texas Mass Murder, Should the NRA's Convention in Houston Be Cancelled?
• Charlie Kirk or Andrew Breitbart? "Good! Fuck him. I couldn’t be happier that he’s dead.” Blast from the past (2012): The Left has "established this notion that, somehow, it's impolite to call them on their bullshit"

• It Doesn't Matter What Republicans Do or Say; The Left and the Press Will Call Them Racist Anyway 

• The Leftist Worldview in a Nutshell: A World of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables

Student Recital in Virginia: Theresa Bennett, voice; Yasmin Lopez, voice; Sarah Gates, piano

 

 

Take a break by listening to the Elwood's Recital at Longwood University Music Department in the Old Dominion. We have two performances accompanied by Sarah Gates at the piano: Theresa Bennett, voice. Yasmin Lopez, voice.