It's just somebody hired.

But if he was, if the person was trying to send a signal and it was an activist and let's say let's just go down this hypothesis. Let's say it was somebody who really really wanted the world to pay attention. It's somebody who didn't just want to kill one guy but wanted the whole world to pay attention and wanted to make a statement. Does it make sense that that person would engrave the bullets with "delay, deny" whatever the third word is because that's the title of a book that's anti-healthcare insurance? So that would make sense if it's an activist, right?

If it's somebody who just wanted that one guy dead and it wasn't so much about the larger picture I don't think he would have engraved anything unless it was part of getting away with it I suppose. But what about the fact that he used what is reportedly, we don't know this for sure could turn out this is wrong but reportedly he used a veterinarian's gun which is meant to put the gun right up basically to the cow or the horse's head and just put a big bullet in it through a silencer so it doesn't scare the other livestock but it's not very accurate.

So if you were going to be a killer and you chose one of the least accurate methods of doing it it seems like you did it to make a point. What would be the point? Well you could imagine that the point was that the healthcare insurance company had treated its customers like animals. Or perhaps the healthcare had said you can't have this medicine we won't approve it and then they had to go to a veterinarian like Ivermectin and get the veterinarian version of the human medicine.

Do you think anybody ever had to do that? Have you ever heard of anybody who had to get veterinarian medicine because their healthcare network wouldn't give it to them? Yes you have. That's the thing. Yeah there were people who used veterinarian medicine because their healthcare wouldn't give them what they thought they needed.

So is the choice of a veterinarian's gun sending a signal that he wants to treat this person like an animal because this person treated customers like an animal? I'm not saying he did. There's no evidence of that. I'm saying if you're looking for was there some kind of larger activist message I would look at the choice of weapon. I would look at the engraving.

But is there anything else that would suggest, oh then the Monopoly money in the backpack. The Monopoly money in the backpack might be, since obviously the backpack was meant to be discovered, I assume he always assumed he would get rid of the backpack so if it was meant to be discovered what message would he be sending by putting money in it that's not real money? Maybe it's about the money. Maybe it's a statement about the healthcare insurance company being more about money than clients.

Maybe. Because what would be the other reason for having Monopoly money in a backpack? It's not like he had a Monopoly game in there. Just the Monopoly money. It's not like he was going to spend it. So can you think of any other reason it would be there other than to send a message? There's no obvious reason I can think of. It had to be a message.

So if the veterinarian gun is a message and the Monopoly money is a way to say follow the money, might be. Might be a message to law enforcement: follow the money. Right? You wouldn't want to put it in a note like a handwritten note or anything because that would be more evidence to his identity. But if you just bought some Monopoly money and you stuck it in your bag law enforcement probably should come up with a theory that that was meant as a message and the message is it's something about money.

Now that would not suggest that the hitman was a paid hitman because a paid hitman would not tell you hey I'm a paid hitman because that would again help you narrow it down to possible suspects. So if you weren't a paid hitman then the Monopoly money presumably would be a message that says follow the money. So it could be that the shooter believes that the victim was up to no good because I think there were some other charges maybe some insider trading charge that was speculated about but I don't have any evidence of that.

It could be that because he thinks healthcare has some kind of a monopoly that he's making a statement about the free market is not working because there's a monopoly. Maybe. So who knows. We'll keep an eye on that.

So the ACLU is trying to reverse the decision that I guess the higher court said that TikTok would be banned in January unless something changes. And the ACLU says that banning TikTok blatantly violates the First Amendment rights of millions of people. Blah blah.

Now remember I was saying that Jon Stewart and Bernie were kind of saying what about common sense? Why can't we just have common sense opinions? Our own team attacks us. What exactly would be the common sense of fighting against the government of the United States, you know an elected government who looked at all the details and said you know what we've got lots of free speech platforms but there's one that's special because of the China connection and we need to limit that one. It's not about the other platforms. It's about one.

Do you think this is really a free speech question? Now I get that reducing, that taking TikTok out of America would reduce your free speech. But remember the deal allows them to sell it to an American company. So all the Chinese owned company has to do of TikTok is they have to sell just the American business to an American entity and then there would be all the free speech in the world.

So the government found what I consider a completely common sense solution which is if you like the product here's a way to keep it. You just have to keep the data and the management in the United States so nothing happens to free speech. There's an option. But also showing that a non-American owned, adversary owned company with that much influence is probably not safe.

So why would the ACLU, who presumably has a million things that they could be doing, why would they pick this of all things? Because it's not really supporting common sense and I would argue it's not even really supporting any right that Americans care about. Do Americans care that they also have a Chinese owned platform if they have plenty of platforms? I mean BlueSky just launched and Zuckerberg did his own Twitter copies etc.

I'm seeing people in the comments suggest that the firearm used by the healthcare hitman was not necessarily a veterinarian's gun and I agree with that. It's definitely not confirmed and the gun experts seemed to be all over the place. They were all over the place on what was happening and was it a jam and was it just the way he had to add bullets anyway.

But back to this. I was trying to understand why the ACLU was acting in a way that didn't seem common sensical and so I said well it's probably one of two things. It's either funded by somebody who always does bad things such as Soros or the management has a DEI problem.

So I first searched to find out how the ACLU is funded and it's a little sketchy but looks like mostly by members which would be a good situation. So in other words individual people paying their annual dues is funding it. I think there's some foundations but mostly the members. And so I thought oh okay at least it's not like the Soros organization trying to destroy America or anything. So I eliminated from my possibilities of what's going on that they were being funded by somebody nefarious.

Now as far as I can tell there's no nefarious funding. So then I looked up the leader and the leader of the ACLU is Deborah Archer who is a black woman. Now there is no evidence whatsoever that she's not fully qualified for the job. However in the context of DEI what should have happened and is observably true is that when you lose the focus on capability and you start focusing on identity what should happen is massive incompetence in all of our public and private domains. You should make everything work worse.

And not because of anybody's color, not because of anybody's gender, sexual preference, genes, nothing about that. It's simply that if you constrain your candidates to they must be a certain kind you're not going to be able to get as many choices. If you have fewer choices your odds of getting the right person in the right job go way down.

So my prediction was I would find one of two things wrong with the ACLU. Either they had a DEI problem which is not confirmed because again Deborah Archer might be the very best person who could be in that job. I don't know one way or the other. I'm saying that if you have a worldview that predicts don't ignore that. So I had a worldview that said as one of these two things and when I saw that it wasn't the funding as far as I can tell but the DEI thing just blazingly stands out as the obvious next possibility.

Again not confirmed. She might be the very best person who could ever be in this job. But the fact that it's predictable, the pred