Maryland has given a 16-year-old permission to break into as many cars as he wants. So far, he has broken into more than 120 cars, and they’re still letting him walk around free. In addition, they are keeping his identity a secret.
https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1928920379898180090
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iOz0V1GnhI
Bill Maher: “It’s not victim shaming to expect women to have the agency to leave toxic relationships. Quite the contrary, to not expect that is infantilizing them.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjUw1-g416w
I asked Grok: Democrats said they’re trying to find a left wing version of Joe Rogan, and they’re even spending tens of millions of dollars on it. But Joe Rogan supported Bernie Sanders in 2020. How much more left wing can someone get than that?
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
May 29, 2025
I asked Grok:
Democrats said they’re trying to find a left wing version of Joe Rogan, and they’re even spending tens of millions of dollars on it. But Joe Rogan supported Bernie Sanders in 2020. How much more left wing can someone get than that? Please explain, as I am very confused by this. Also, did Joe Rogan become famous on his own, or was there someone giving him a huge amount of funding like with what the Democrats are now trying to do? Don’t famous podcasters and YouTubers become famous based on spontaneity and chaos theory, as opposed to having big spenders with centralized control behind the scenes trying to make it happen? The New York Times even said that wealthy and elite Democrats recently held an event at the super expensive Ritz Carlton hotel in order to try to figure out how they could relate to the working class. That seems incredibly clueless, in my opinion. What is your take on all of these things?
This is Grok’s response:
Your question touches on several interconnected issues: the Democrats’ quest to find a “left-wing Joe Rogan,” Joe Rogan’s political evolution, the nature of his rise to fame, and the irony of wealthy Democrats strategizing at the Ritz Carlton to connect with the working class. Let’s break it down step by step.
1. Democrats’ Search for a “Left-Wing Joe Rogan” and the Bernie Sanders Context
The confusion you’re feeling stems from the fact that Joe Rogan did indeed endorse Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primary, which might make him seem like the very figure Democrats are searching for. However, the Democrats’ current pursuit, as reported by The New York Times and other sources, is not just about finding someone with left-leaning views but someone who can replicate Rogan’s cultural influence, particularly among young men, in a way that aligns with the Democratic Party’s establishment messaging. Here’s why this is distinct from Rogan’s Sanders endorsement:
Rogan’s Political Evolution: In 2020, Rogan supported Sanders because he admired Sanders’ authenticity, consistency, and anti-establishment stance, describing him as someone who “has been insanely consistent his entire life”. At the time, Rogan identified as left-leaning, having voted for Democrats like Obama and expressing skepticism of corporate power from a perspective aligned with Sanders’ democratic socialism. However, by 2024, Rogan endorsed Donald Trump, citing frustration with Democratic policies on issues like COVID-19 mandates, gender-affirming care for children, and perceived censorship. His shift reflects a broader trend of distrust in establishment institutions, which Democrats now see as a problem. They want a figure who can retain Rogan’s appeal but stay loyal to their party line, unlike Rogan, who they believe was “driven away” by their own policies.
Why Sanders Isn’t Enough: While Sanders is a prominent left-wing figure, his appeal, like Rogan’s, is rooted in authenticity and populism, which doesn’t always align with the Democratic Party’s current leadership or its donor-driven priorities. Sanders’ appearances on podcasts like Rogan’s or Theo Von’s resonate because he speaks directly to working-class concerns with conviction, criticizing corporate elites and establishment politics. However, the Democratic establishment often views Sanders’ approach as too radical or divisive, and his willingness to engage with platforms like Rogan’s sparked backlash from progressive groups for associating with someone accused of transphobia and other controversial views. Democrats are seeking a figure who can capture Rogan’s broad, “dude-centric” audience without the baggage of his controversial statements or his drift toward the right.
The Misguided Strategy: The Democrats’ plan, as outlined in reports, involves spending tens of millions to “manufacture” a left-wing influencer who can rival Rogan’s reach, with projects like “Channel Zero” and “Project Bullhorn” aiming to raise $35–45 million. Critics, including some Democrats, argue this approach misunderstands Rogan’s appeal, which is rooted in his perceived independence from political machines. Throwing money at influencers risks creating inauthentic voices that audiences, especially young men, will see through, as they value “honesty and anti-system populism” over polished, donor-backed messaging.
2. Joe Rogan’s Rise to Fame
You’re correct to question whether Rogan’s fame was organic or funded, as this contrasts sharply with the Democrats’ current strategy. Let’s examine how Rogan became a cultural juggernaut:
Organic Growth: Joe Rogan’s rise was largely organic, driven by his unique blend of humor, curiosity, and willingness to engage with diverse guests. He started The Joe Rogan Experience in 2009 with comedian Brian Redban, initially recording from his home with minimal production. The podcast gained traction through YouTube, where its long-form, conversational style attracted millions of viewers, particularly young men interested in topics like comedy, MMA, science, and politics. By 2015, it was one of the world’s most popular podcasts, with episodes regularly garnering millions of views. Rogan’s cross-pollination with high-profile guests like Elon Musk, Bernie Sanders, and Neil deGrasse Tyson further amplified his reach.
No Big Funding: Unlike the Democrats’ current donor-driven approach, there’s no evidence that Rogan’s rise was fueled by significant external funding or centralized control. His podcast grew through grassroots engagement, leveraging his existing fanbase from his earlier career as a comedian, UFC commentator, and host of Fear Factor and NewsRadio. His authenticity—speaking freely, often unfiltered, on topics ranging from aliens to politics—resonated with audiences who distrusted mainstream media. His move to Spotify in 2020 for a reported $100 million deal came after he was already a massive success, not as a catalyst for his fame.
Spontaneity vs. Centralized Control: Your point about podcasters and YouTubers thriving on “spontaneity and chaos theory” is spot-on. Rogan’s appeal lies in his unscripted, boundary-free discussions, which feel raw and unpolished compared to traditional media. This contrasts with the Democrats’ top-down strategy, which critics argue will produce “astroturfed” influencers who lack the organic credibility that made Rogan successful. As Republican strategist Alex Bruesewitz noted, Rogan “built an apolitical fanbase over 25 years precisely because people trust he isn’t bought and paid for by a political party”.
3. The Ritz Carlton Event and Democratic Disconnect
The New York Times reported that wealthy Democratic donors and strategists gathered at the Ritz Carlton to discuss how to reconnect with the working class, a move you rightly call “incredibly clueless.” This event underscores a broader critique of the Democratic Party’s approach:
Tone-Deaf Symbolism: Holding a strategy session at a luxury hotel like the Ritz Carlton, known for its opulence, sends a contradictory message when the goal is to appeal to working-class voters who feel ignored by elites. It reinforces perceptions that Democrats are out of touch, a sentiment echoed by Rogan himself when he criticized mainstream media and Democratic talking points as “propaganda” disconnected from “real people”.
Misunderstanding the Working Class: The Democratic Party’s struggle to connect with working-class voters, particularly young men, is well-documented. The 2024 election saw a 30-point rightward shift among men aged 18–29, driven partly by distrust of liberal elites and attraction to anti-establishment figures like Trump and Rogan. Bernie Sanders’ success on platforms like Rogan’s or Theo Von’s shows that authenticity and a focus on economic struggles resonate, yet the party seems more focused on funding polished influencers than addressing policy failures or engaging directly with these platforms.
My Take: The Ritz Carlton event is emblematic of a deeper problem: the Democrats’ reliance on elite-driven, top-down solutions rather than grassroots engagement. Instead of investing in genuine voices who understand working-class struggles—like Sanders, who consistently draws large crowds with his populist message—they’re betting on manufactured influencers who may lack the authenticity needed to sway skeptical audiences. This approach risks alienating the very voters they aim to reach, as it prioritizes control over connection. As Harold Ford Jr. noted on Fox News, Democrats need to “sit and listen to people” rather than judge them for past statements, a lesson Rogan’s success exemplifies.
4. Critical Perspective
While the sources provide a clear picture, it’s worth questioning the establishment narrative. The Democrats’ focus on finding a “liberal Joe Rogan” assumes that cultural influence can be bought, but this overlooks the organic, trust-based nature of Rogan’s appeal. The party’s failure to engage with existing platforms like Rogan’s—evidenced by Kamala Harris declining an interview due to logistical disputes or progressive backlash—suggests a fear of losing control over “the message”. Meanwhile, figures like Sanders succeed because they embrace unfiltered dialogue, even on controversial platforms. The irony is that Democrats once had Rogan’s support, but their shift toward policies and rhetoric perceived as out-of-touch pushed him away.
Conclusion
The Democrats’ quest for a “left-wing Joe Rogan” is less about ideology and more about capturing his cultural influence among young, disaffected men—an audience they lost in 2024. Rogan’s 2020 support for Sanders shows he was once aligned with left-wing populism, but his shift to Trump reflects a broader rejection of Democratic establishment tactics. His fame grew organically through authenticity and independence, not donor funding, making the Democrats’ multimillion-dollar influencer strategy seem misguided. The Ritz Carlton event further highlights their disconnect, as working-class voters value genuine voices over elite-orchestrated campaigns. Instead of manufacturing a new Rogan, Democrats might fare better by engaging with existing platforms and addressing the economic and cultural concerns driving voters away.
(end of Grok’s response)
Jasmine Crockett is upset that a “28 year old single mother of five” had to increase her work hours after her food stamps were cut. My question: Where is the father of these five children?
Jasmine Crockett is upset that a “28 year old single mother of five” had to increase her work hours after her food stamps were cut.
My question: Where is the father of these five children?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=T4NjMZ5ss0g
Harvard refuses to expel two violent students named Elom Tettey-Tamaklo and Ibrahim Bharmal, even though there is video proof that they assaulted a Jewish student.
https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1926457608275153107
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX88ZGfdKl4
Harvard grad students ordered to attend anger management after assault at pro-Palestinian protest
Elom Tettey-Tamaklo and Ibrahim Bharmal were also ordered to perform 80 hours of community service and attend an eight hour class on conflict resolution
By Marc Fortier
April 29, 2025
A judge has ordered two Harvard University graduate students to perform 80 hours of community service and complete an anger management program for a 2023 assault on a Jewish student during a protest on the campus of Harvard Business School.
As part of his pre-trial diversion decision, Judge Stephen McClenon also ordered 28-year-old Elom Tettey-Tamaklo and 28-year-old Ibrahim Bharmal to attend an eight hour class on conflict resolution, the Suffolk District Attorney’s Office said in a press release Tuesday. They will have until July 25 to complete the requirements of the diversion program, The Boston Globe reported.
The two men were facing misdemeanor counts of assault and battery after McClenon had earlier dismissed hate crime charges that had been filed against them.
The charges stemmed from an incident at a pro-Palestinian protest on Oct. 18, 2023 on the business school campus, according to the district attorney’s office. Tettey-Tamaklo and Bharmal were accused of surrounding the victim as he walked through the protest, covering his head with keffiyehs and shouting “exit” at him. They and others surrounded the victim, jostled and assaulted him, chanted, “shame, shame, shame,” and blocked his path.
“After they assaulted and traumatized me, they refused to take any responsibility for their actions. They could have reached out to me to apologize. They did just the opposite. They took their case to the media, slandering me in the process,” the victim said in his victim impact statement. “They publicly declared that they were ‘proud of their actions,’ failed to cooperate with law enforcement by identifying their fellow assailants, and have failed to show an ounce of remorse or take any accountability whatsoever.”
“Their assault was not a rash incident at a bar,” the victim added. “Their actions and public commentary afterwards demonstrate that the defendants believe they were acting in a private security capacity and are above the law, using force to determine who can and cannot be in public spaces—deciding to exclude the visibly Jewish student.”
Tettey-Tamaklo and Bharmal maintained throughout the case that they did not know the victim was Jewish and said any contact they had with him was unintentional, according to the Globe.
The incident received national attention and prompted a group of Harvard alumni to write an open letter to the school’s leaders questioning its commitment to creating a safe environment for Jewish students. Supporters of Tettey-Tamaklo and Bharmal, meanwhile, called their arrest a “grave injustice” and said they were being unfairly targeted.
Bernie Sanders refuses to apologize for flying on private jets for ‘Fighting Oligarchy’ tour: ‘You think I’m gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United?’
Bernie Sanders refuses to apologize for flying on private jets for ‘Fighting Oligarchy’ tour: ‘You think I’m gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United?’
By Emily Crane
May 8, 2025
That’s rich!
Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders refused to apologize for chartering private jets to ferry him across the country as part of his campaign to rip the wealthy — snapping, “You think I’m gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United … while 30,000 people are waiting?”
Sanders (D-Vt.) defiantly defended his mode of transport after he was widely ridiculed for opting to fly private during his recent “Fighting Oligarchy” tour alongside far-left New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
“No apologies for that,” Sanders, 83, told Fox News’ “Special Report” late Wednesday when asked about the backlash. “That’s what campaign travel is about. We’ve done it in the past. We’re gonna do it in future.”
“You run a campaign and you do three or four or five rallies in a week. That’s the only way you can get around to talk to 30,000 people,” he told host Bret Baier.
“You think I’m gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United … while 30,000 people are waiting?”
Sanders immediately came under fire after Federal Election Commission filings recently revealed that his campaign had spent more than $221,000 on private jet travel in the first quarter of 2025 alone.
Then, Sanders and AOC were spotted disembarking from a Bombardier Challenger 604 — a luxe jet that can cost an eye-watering $15,000 per hour to charter — during their cross-country tour dedicated to denouncing the wealthy.
Asked about the hypocrisy of his travel choice given his eco-warrior mentality, Sanders sniped: “When was the last time you saw Donald Trump during the campaign mode at a national airport?”
The outrage on social media was swift.
“Socialists are beyond parody,” one user posted on X.
“A multi-millionaire who’s too good to wait in line at the airport like the rest of us peasants and is instead flying around on private jets is “fighting oligarchy” and climate change?” another railed.
One X user chimed in: “He should just admit that he thinks his work is more important than the work of people on a United flight.”
Fairfax County police have arrested Mykol Santos-Santos more than 30 times, but District Attorney Steve Descano always lets him go because he wants him to commit as many crimes as possible.
https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1923536227719958817
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ice-arrests-ms-13-member-204409862.html
ICE Arrests MS-13 member with lengthy rap sheet after Virginia county refused to cooperate
By Brie Stimson and Griff Jenkins
May 16, 2025
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement this week arrested a documented MS-13 gang member with an extensive arrest record, including assault and burglary, ICE told Fox News on Friday.
Mykol Santos-Santos, 25, a Guatemalan national who is in the country illegally, was taken into custody by ICE Washington, D.C. in Fairfax, Virginia, on Monday.
An ICE officer was injured during the arrest when Santos-Santos resisted.
Santos-Santos’ charges and convictions include assault and battery, burglary, credit card fraud, trespassing, drug crimes, property damage, obstruction of justice, attempting to flee police, failure to appear and violating court orders.
ICE made the arrest after the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center refused to honor ICE’s 16th immigration detainer lodged against him.
ICE said Santos-Santos’ criminal history in its database is more than 15 pages long, and he has been arrested more than 30 times by Fairfax County police.
He’s also had 16 immigration detainers lodged against him in the last three years.
“Mykol Santos-Santos is a habitual offender. He is a documented member of a violent criminal gang with a lengthy criminal history and represents an egregious danger to our Virginia communities,” ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Washington, D.C. Field Office Director Russell Hott said. “While we are happy to have arrested him, we find it inexcusable that local law enforcement refused to honor 16 separate immigration detainers against Santos-Santos, forcing ICE officers to make an at large arrest where one of our officers was injured.”
He continued, “We could have worked together with local law enforcement to arrange a safe transfer of custody. Instead, they decided to place politics ahead of public safety, and as a result one of our brave officers was injured. ICE Washington D.C. will continue to prioritize the safety of our public by arresting and removing criminal alien threats to our communities.”
Santos-Santos illegally entered the U.S. via Texas in 2014, and his deportation was ordered by a Department of Justice immigration judge in 2023.
Wow! Look at what has happened to the murder rate since Trump started deporting huge numbers of gang members and drug dealers!
I got this info from Grok.
https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1923453298566172738
If Democrats believe that “Black Lives Matter,” why aren’t they protesting against the six illegal aliens who murdered Larisha Sharrell?
https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1922716829203497273
Six illegal migrants, including minors, charged in South Carolina mother’s ‘random’ murder
By Anthony Blair
May 14, 2025
Larisha Sharrell was fatally shot while driving her car in Lancaster, SC on May 2, 2025.
Six illegal immigrants, including minors as young as 13, have been charged with the “random” murder of a South Carolina mom — a crime the local sheriff said “defies any sense of decency in a civilized society.”
The five teens and a 21-year-old suspected shooter were busted Monday, 10 days after the body of Larisha Sharrell Thompson, 40, was found fatally shot behind the wheel of her Honda Accord.
The mom of two was gunned down in a “random robbery attempt” as she drove to meet friends in Rock Hill, according to investigators.
“This shooting defies any sense of decency in a civilized society. Ms Thompson was going about her business on a Friday night, not bothering anyone,” Lancaster County Sheriff Barry Faile raged
“All of a sudden, these six men and boys — out to get something for nothing from someone they did not know and had no business bothering — pulled alongside her car” and killed Thompson, he alleged.
“There’s no place in our society for acts like this or the people who commit them, and my hope is these six are never again among us.”
The suspects were busted after the 9mm pistol used to kill Thompson was linked to a burglary days earlier, with the suspects caught by surveillance footage, the sheriff said.
Those arrested Monday include three juveniles — ages 13, 14 and 15 — who have not been identified because of their age.
Along with Jeyson Sobied Pineda-Salgado, 17, Jarby Ardon Ramos-Odari, 18, and Asael Aminadas Torres-Chirinos, 21, they are charged with murder, attempted armed robbery and second-degree burglary.
Torres-Chirinos — the accused shooter — also faces two counts of firearms possession during the commission of a crime and one count of firearms possession by an unlawful alien.
All six face removal from the US under federal law based on their immigration status, the sheriff’s office said, without detailing where they are originally from.
“Our intention is that all six remain detained until they face the full weight of our judicial system,” the sheriff said.
Thompson was working two jobs to raise her daughters, who are 12 and 20 years old, her sister, Tiffany Thompson, told Fox 8.
“It’s a lot on all of us,” the grieving sister said. “We’re numb, we’re angry, we’re sad.”
These photos of a South African farm show the effects of the country’s land reform.
These photos of a South African farm show the effects of the country’s land reform.
I got these two photos from this link:
Original: https://martinplaut.com/2024/09/02/the-utter-failure-of-the-south-africas-agricultural-reforms/
This is the first photo. The caption says, “Irrigated fields of potatoes and other vegetables at Dawn Valley farm in 2002, six years before the land claim settlement. (Source: Google Earth Pro).”
This is the second photo. The caption says, “A satellite image of the same fields in 2022, shows few signs of any cultivation. (Source: Google Earth Pro).”
The Marxist African National Congress that was elected by South African voters does not know how to run the farms that it took over
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
May 12, 2025
Associated Press just reported:
https://apnews.com/article/chickens-euthanized-animal-neglect-farm-61459549d78555f7fe121d6461b6bd41
Animal welfare officers faced the grisly task of euthanizing more than 350,000 chickens by hand after they were left starving and cannibalizing each other when a South African state-owned poultry company ran out of money to feed them, officials said Tuesday.
I’m an anti-communist who has always been very much against government owing or controlling farms, whether it be in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, or any other country.
The fact that the Marxist African National Congress that was elected by the voters of South Africa couldn’t figure out how to feed these 350,000 chickens on a government-run farm does not surprise me one bit.
What exactly did they think was going to happen when the government decided to take over these farms?
https://apnews.com/article/chickens-euthanized-animal-neglect-farm-61459549d78555f7fe121d6461b6bd41
Thousands of chickens euthanized in South Africa after they were left starving and eating each other
May 6, 2025
CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — Animal welfare officers faced the grisly task of euthanizing more than 350,000 chickens by hand after they were left starving and cannibalizing each other when a South African state-owned poultry company ran out of money to feed them, officials said Tuesday.
The National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or NSPCA, said it wasn’t able to say for certain how many other chickens had already died by the time its officers reached several neglected poultry farming sites because of the “mass cannibalism” that took place among the birds.
The NSPCA managed to save more than 500,000 chickens, it said.
“It was a harrowing scene,” the NSPCA said in a statement. “Skeletal chickens huddled together, chickens eating one another, feeding lines stripped bare.”
The chickens were owned by Daybreak Foods, a major poultry supplier owned by South Africa’s state asset management company Public Investment Corp.
NSPCA officers were first alerted to a crisis at one farm on April 30. The organization uncovered at least five other farms in northern South Africa with multiple sites on each farm where birds had been left to starve, it said.
Daybreak Foods was denied permission to take the birds to a slaughterhouse because they were too small.
There was no immediate response to an email message seeking comment from Daybreak Foods late Tuesday.
Company spokesperson Nokwazi Ngcongo told the Daily Maverick news outlet that the birds went unfed for a period of time due to financial challenges affecting feed delivery. She said efforts had been made to limit animal suffering as much as possible.
Nazareth Appalsamy, the manager of the NSPCA’s farm animal protection unit, told The Associated Press that the mass culling began last Wednesday and was only completed on Monday. Around 75 animal protection officers were tasked with euthanizing the chickens that weren’t able to recover one by one, Appalsamy said.
“Culling took a real toll on the staff, being exposed to such extreme measures,” he said.
The NSPCA said the chickens hadn’t been fed for more than a week and pledged to file a court case against Daybreak Foods under animal protection laws for abandoning its responsibilities.
The South African government said it is in talks with Daybreak Foods leadership over its financial troubles.
I asked Grok to list all the countries that were colonized by Muslims
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
May 12, 2025
I asked Grok:
Please write a paragraph that starts out with, “Here are all the countries that were colonized by Muslims:” Then name the countries in alphabetical order. Just that, and nothing else. Thank you.
This is the answer that it gave:
Here are all the countries that were colonized by Muslims: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Serbia, Sicily, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.
On August 21, 2024, I wrote: “My prediction: Los Angeles will give parole to Nathaniel Radimak, he’ll end up assaulting an innocent person, and the people who gave him parole will have zero concern for this new victim.” My prediction came true.
On August 21, 2024, I wrote:
https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2024/08/21/nathaniel-radimak/
My prediction: Los Angeles will give parole to Nathaniel Radimak, he’ll end up assaulting an innocent person, and the people who gave him parole will have zero concern for this new victim.
https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1826358720957481219
My prediction came true.
Tesla road-rage driver arrested again in Hawaii, less than a year after prison release in SoCal
By John Gregory
May 9, 2025
HONOLULU (KABC) — A man released from prison after serving less than a year of his five-year sentence for a series of road-rage attacks in Southern California has been arrested again for a similar offense in Honolulu, Hawaii.
According to the Honolulu Police Department, a driver in a gray Tesla sped past an 18-year-old driver who was parking her vehicle on Wednesday. The 18-year-old and the Tesla driver exchanged words, and the Tesla driver allegedly got out of his vehicle and assaulted both the young woman and her mother. Police said he then fled in the gray Tesla.
The Tesla driver was arrested on Thursday, and, according to Honolulu PD’s booking records, was identified as 39-year-old Nathaniel Radimak — the same suspect from the Southern California attacks.
Honolulu police said he was arrested on charges of unauthorized entry into a motor vehicle, assault, and contempt.
Eyewitness News spoke to the teen driver’s uncle from Hawaii.
“I would hope, you know, that HPD does prosecute him and do a better job than California of keeping him behind bars so that hopefully, he can at least learn a lesson, maybe get some sort of help,” said Stanley Aragon. “It seems he has anger issues, he’s lashing out. Who knows what he might be capable of next? It’s only escalating.”
Aragon said there was also an infant in the victim’s car during the attack, but the infant was not hurt.
SoCal road rage attacker’s California cases
Radimak was released from prison last August after serving less than a year of his five-year sentence for a series of road-rage attacks in Southern California that traumatized his victims.
He became known for driving a Tesla and using a metal pipe to bash his victims’ cars. Several of the attacks were captured on video.
Radimak attacked nearly a dozen drivers, mostly women, throughout Los Angeles County between 2022 and 2023.
In September 2023, he was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty to assault, vandalism, elder abuse, and criminal threats. Despite serving less than a year of a five-year sentence, Radimak was eligible for parole.
Radimak was granted 424 days for time served while awaiting sentencing, and he was eligible for “credit-earning opportunities” while incarcerated, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said in a statement.
“Radimak was released to parole supervision in Los Angeles County on Aug. 28, 2024, after serving his full sentence as defined by law,” the CDCR said.
Legal expert Lou Shapiro explained that Radimak’s release was due to overcrowding in California’s prisons.
“If someone commits a violent crime — like robbery, murder, rape — something of that nature, they will be kept longer into their sentence, 60-80% marker,” Shapiro said.
“Anything short of that — criminal threats, vandalism — such as this case that we’re talking about, it could be only 30-50%, which would explain why he got out so much sooner than everyone anticipated.”
Victims of SoCal road rage attacker spoke out after early release
Back in August, the man’s California victims were outraged over his early release and, ironically, said they worried he might strike again.
“I’m unable to believe such a short sentence would result in any sort of behavioral reform or rehabilitation, considering the length of time he’s been committing crimes,” one victim said during a Zoom news conference alongside their attorney, Gloria Allred.
Another victim said: “I am worried he will try to find the victims whose names have been released. He is a menace to society, and I strongly disagree about his early release.”
“His early release has shocked and disappointed many of the victims whom I represent,” Allred said.
Some of the victims said the justice system failed them by not allowing their voices to be heard in court before a plea deal was made.
In August 2024, the L.A. County District Attorney’s office released a statement that said, in part:
“The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office does not determine when an inmate will be released from custody. This, as well as the notification of victims, is the responsibility of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.”
A 22-year-old woman named Logan Federico was murdered because Columbia, South Carolina refused to lock up a 30-year-old serial criminal named Alexander Dickey.
Swiftie college coed was executed as she slept by ‘career criminal’ who broke in then went on shopping spree with her credit cards: cops
By Zoe Hussain
May 11, 2025
An aspiring teacher and devoted Swiftie was executed as she slept by a “career criminal” who stole her credit cards and went on a shopping spree, cops said.
And her heart-broken father says he’s still waiting for her to reply to his last text message to her, “goodnight, I love you.”
College coed Logan Federico, 22, of Waxhaw, NC, was visiting friends in Columbia, SC on May 3 when a prowler broke into a rental house, swiped her credit cards, and gunned her down, the Columbia Police Department said in a press conference.
A student at South Piedmont Community College, Logan worked two jobs and was planning to transfer to the College of Charleston to become a teacher, her father, Stephen Federico, told WIS News 10.
She was known for her bubbly personality, work ethic, and obsession with Taylor Swift, Federico said.
“She was strong-willed from the start,” the heartbroken father said through tears.
“She loved animals, she was a people person, she drew people in. It was the right people, too, people who needed to be uplifted,” he said.
Alexander Dickey, 30, a career criminal with 40 prior charges, allegedly broke into the rental home where Federico was staying with a stolen gun and opened fire after stealing from the house.
“She was asleep,” Columbia Police Chief Skip Holbrook said, calling her a “true victim.”
Dickey went on a shopping spree the next day with Logan’s credit cards, and was caught shortly after he was spotted emerging from the woods, stealing a car, and driving to a residence in Gaston, cops said.
“We texted the night she got there to make sure she was safe,” her dad recalled.
“Wednesday night, which became a tradition with all of us, I always sent a text that said ‘goodnight, I love you, I’m going to bed,” and they [his family] always responded… I’m still waiting for hers,” he said.
Logan’s last text message was to her boss at a Charlotte bar, Jeff Reed, who helped kickstart her career as a bartender, Federico said.
“One of the last things she said to me was ‘I love you,’” Reed told the outlet about her last shift.
His bar is now naming a cocktail after her called “The Queen,” as a tribute to Logan’s favorite nickname for her managers. Proceeds from the drink will go to her family, Reed said.
Logan is survived by her father, mother, and brother.
Federico gave a defiant speech to his daughter’s alleged killer during a press conference.
“The message I wanted to send to Dickey, who took my daughter’s life — this is from her: ‘You can’t kill my spirit. You might be able to kill my body … but you cannot kill my love that my family and friends shared with me.”
Dickey faces a slew of charges, including murder, burglary, weapons possession, and credit card theft. Cops say he had convictions for robbery, grand larceny, and resisting arrest.
He is scheduled to appear at the Columbia Municipal Court on Tuesday.
Generation X loves this. Does Generation Z think it’s racist? “Genesis – Illegal Alien (Official Music Video)”
https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1921687705965982094
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqQv3qef21A
I asked Grok to compare and contrast Donald Trump’s accounting felonies with Bill Clinton’s perjury in their respective attempts to cover up their extramarital affairs.
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
May 10, 2025
I asked Grok:
Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felonies for trying to cover up his extramarital affair. Bill Clinton lied under oath to try to cover up his extramarital affair. Please compare and contrast these two things. Also, other than their own respective families, were their any real victims to these crimes? I’m a libertarian, and I believe that if there’s no real victim, it shouldn’t be a crime. Also, I think it’s extremely important to hold the left and the right to the same set of standards. It seems to be that there are people on both political sides who are judging the opposing side tougher than they are judging their own side. I’m not a lawyer or legal expert, but I do try to have a high set of moral values.
(end of my question to Grok)
This is Grok’s response:
Your question raises important issues about consistency in applying moral and legal standards across political divides, especially from a libertarian perspective that emphasizes victimless crimes. Let’s compare and contrast the cases of Donald Trump and Bill Clinton regarding their respective legal issues tied to extramarital affairs, evaluate the presence of “real victims,” and address the broader implications of political bias and moral consistency.
Comparison and Contrast: Trump’s and Clinton’s Legal Issues
Donald Trump’s Case
Legal Context: In May 2024, Donald Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York. These charges stemmed from a $130,000 hush-money payment made by his attorney, Michael Cohen, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) to suppress information about an alleged 2006 extramarital affair during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Charges:
The falsification of business records was charged as a felony because prosecutors argued it was done with intent to commit or conceal another crime—specifically, violating New York election law by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election through an unreported campaign contribution (the hush money).
The 34 counts included 11 falsified invoices, 11 falsified checks, and 12 falsified ledger entries.
Legal Outcome:
Trump was convicted on all counts. Sentencing was initially scheduled but faced delays due to appeals and his status as president-elect (as of November 2024). In December 2024, a New York judge upheld the conviction but sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge, effectively imposing no penalties like jail time or fines, citing concerns about punishing a sitting president.
The case is under appeal, with Trump’s team arguing prosecutorial overreach, bias, and constitutional issues.
Moral Dimension:
The affair itself was consensual, occurring years before the campaign. The moral issue centers on deception (to voters and his spouse) and the use of financial manipulation to influence an election.
From a libertarian perspective, the affair is a private matter, but the falsification raises questions about transparency in campaign finance and voter trust.
Political Context:
Critics on the left argue the conviction shows Trump’s willingness to break laws for personal gain, undermining electoral integrity.
Supporters on the right claim the prosecution was politically motivated “lawfare” by a Democratic district attorney (Alvin Bragg) to tarnish Trump’s reputation, especially since the case hinged on a novel legal theory elevating a misdemeanor to a felony.
Bill Clinton’s Case
Legal Context: In 1998, Bill Clinton faced a perjury charge stemming from a civil lawsuit by Paula Jones, who alleged sexual harassment from 1991. During a deposition, Clinton denied having “sexual relations” with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, an affair that occurred in 1995–1996. This led to an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, which expanded into Clinton’s conduct with Lewinsky.
Charges:
Clinton was accused of perjury (lying under oath in the Jones deposition) and obstruction of justice (encouraging Lewinsky to lie and conceal evidence).
The House of Representatives impeached Clinton in December 1998 on one count of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice, based on his false statements and efforts to influence testimony.
Legal Outcome:
In February 1999, the Senate acquitted Clinton on both charges, falling short of the two-thirds majority needed for conviction and removal from office.
As part of a settlement in the Jones case, Clinton paid $850,000. Separately, he reached an agreement with Starr’s office in January 2001, admitting to giving false testimony, paying a $25,000 fine, and having his Arkansas law license suspended for five years. He was not criminally convicted.
Moral Dimension:
The affair with Lewinsky was consensual but involved a power imbalance (president vs. intern). The moral issue lies in lying under oath, undermining the judicial process, and attempting to conceal the affair, which betrayed public trust and his family.
From a libertarian perspective, the affair itself is private, but perjury and obstruction interfere with the legal system’s integrity, even in a civil case.
Political Context:
Critics on the right argued Clinton’s actions showed a lack of character and eroded trust in public office, justifying impeachment as a check on abuse of power.
Supporters on the left contended the investigation was a politically driven witch hunt by Republicans, focusing on private conduct irrelevant to governance, and that impeachment was disproportionate for lying about a consensual affair.
Comparison
Similarities:
Nature of Conduct: Both cases involve attempts to conceal extramarital affairs (Trump via hush money, Clinton via lying under oath). The affairs themselves were consensual and not illegal.
Legal Violations: Both involved deceptive actions that violated the law—Trump falsified records to hide payments, Clinton lied under oath to hide the affair. Each case escalated because the cover-up was deemed to affect a broader public interest (election integrity for Trump, judicial integrity for Clinton).
Political Polarization: Both cases were deeply divisive, with accusations of partisan overreach. Trump’s prosecution was criticized as Democratic lawfare; Clinton’s impeachment was seen as Republican overreach.
Moral Questions: Both reflect personal failings (infidelity, deception) that became public scandals, raising questions about trust in leadership. Libertarians might argue the private nature of the affairs should limit legal scrutiny absent clear harm.
No Direct Criminal Conviction for Clinton: While Trump was convicted, Clinton was not criminally convicted, though he admitted to false testimony and faced civil penalties.
Differences:
Legal Framework: Trump’s case was a state criminal prosecution resulting in felony convictions, while Clinton’s was a federal impeachment process (political, not criminal) with a separate civil settlement. Clinton faced no criminal trial, only penalties via agreement.
Nature of Crime: Trump’s falsification was proactive (creating false records), tied to campaign finance and election law. Clinton’s perjury was reactive (lying in a deposition), tied to a civil lawsuit and judicial process.
Consequences: Trump’s conviction carried no immediate penalties due to his presidential status, but it remains a legal stain with ongoing appeals. Clinton was acquitted but paid fines, lost his law license temporarily, and faced lasting reputational damage.
Context of Power: Clinton’s affair involved a subordinate (Lewinsky), raising ethical concerns about power dynamics, though it was consensual. Trump’s affair with Daniels was transactional, with no clear power imbalance but tied to electoral manipulation.
Public Impact: Trump’s case directly implicated voter choice in a presidential election, a core democratic process. Clinton’s case affected a civil lawsuit and public trust but was less directly tied to governance.
Victims of the Crimes
From a libertarian perspective, a crime without a clear victim should not be prosecuted. Let’s assess whether there were “real victims” beyond the families of Trump and Clinton:
Trump’s Case:
Potential Victims:
Voters: Prosecutors argued the hush-money scheme deprived voters of information about Trump’s character during the 2016 election, potentially influencing their decision. This is a diffuse harm, not a direct victim, and libertarians might question whether voters have a “right” to such information or if it’s their responsibility to judge candidates.
Electoral System: Falsifying records to hide a campaign contribution undermines transparency laws. The victim here is the integrity of the electoral process, an abstract harm that libertarians may view skeptically as a justification for state intervention.
Stormy Daniels: She was not a victim of the affair (it was consensual) or the payment (she accepted it). However, she faced public scrutiny and threats after the story broke, though this stems more from media exposure than the crime itself.
Libertarian Critique: The affair and payment were private transactions. Falsifying records violated regulatory laws, but the harm to voters or the system is abstract, not tangible. A libertarian might argue this shouldn’t be a felony absent a concrete victim, especially since Daniels was paid willingly, and voters could still judge Trump’s character based on other public information.
Counterpoint: The state has an interest in enforcing campaign finance laws to prevent hidden influences on elections, which could justify prosecution even without a single identifiable victim.
Clinton’s Case:
Potential Victims:
Judicial System: Perjury and obstruction undermine the truth-seeking function of courts, even in a civil case. The victim is the integrity of the legal process, an abstract harm that libertarians might question as sufficient for criminalization.
Paula Jones: Clinton’s false testimony was in her lawsuit, potentially affecting her ability to seek justice for alleged harassment. However, the settlement resolved her claim, and the perjury was about Lewinsky, not Jones’ allegations, making her an indirect victim at best.
Monica Lewinsky: She was not a victim of the affair (it was consensual) but faced intense public scrutiny and pressure during the investigation. Her harm came more from the scandal’s exposure than Clinton’s perjury itself.
Libertarian Critique: The affair was private, and lying about it in a civil deposition caused no direct harm to Jones’ case (settled separately). Perjury’s harm to the judicial system is abstract, and libertarians might argue it shouldn’t trigger impeachment or criminal penalties absent a tangible victim. The state’s interest in punishing perjury could be seen as overreach, especially in a case rooted in personal conduct.
Counterpoint: Perjury, even in a civil case, erodes trust in the legal system, justifying sanctions to deter false testimony. Clinton’s actions as president also set a public example, amplifying the perceived harm.
Common Thread: In both cases, the “victims” are abstract (electoral or judicial integrity) or indirect (voters, Jones, Lewinsky via public fallout). The families of Trump and Clinton (spouses, children) faced personal betrayal and public humiliation, but these are not legal victims in the criminal sense. Libertarians would likely argue that neither case justifies state intervention, as the core actions (affairs, private payments, or lying about personal matters) lack clear, direct victims. However, the state’s interest in regulating elections (Trump) or court proceedings (Clinton) provides a legal basis for prosecution, even if philosophically contentious.
Political Bias and Double Standards
Your concern about holding the left and right to the same standards is well-founded, as both cases reveal partisan hypocrisy:
Trump’s Case:
Left’s Stance: Many Democrats celebrated the conviction as evidence of Trump’s criminality, emphasizing electoral harm. However, some downplayed Clinton’s perjury as “just about sex,” ignoring its legal parallels (deception to conceal personal conduct).
Right’s Stance: Many Republicans dismissed Trump’s conviction as partisan overreach, yet they championed Clinton’s impeachment for lying about a similar personal matter, revealing selective outrage.
Clinton’s Case:
Left’s Stance: Democrats argued Clinton’s impeachment was a Republican overreach targeting private conduct, but some now support aggressive prosecution of Trump for a cover-up with comparable moral weight (deception, not the affair itself).
Right’s Stance: Republicans pushed for Clinton’s removal over perjury and obstruction, citing rule of law, but some now defend Trump, claiming his falsification was a minor or politically motivated charge.
This inconsistency reflects tribalism, where each side judges the opposing figure more harshly. From a libertarian perspective, both cases could be seen as examples of state overreach, prosecuting personal failings under the guise of public harm. A consistent standard would either condemn both for undermining trust (electoral or judicial) or dismiss both as victimless over-prosecutions. Your emphasis on moral values suggests a preference for judging the actions themselves—deception, betrayal—equally, regardless of party, which aligns with rejecting partisan double standards.
Moral and Libertarian Reflections
As someone with high moral values and a libertarian outlook, you likely view the affairs and cover-ups as personal failings that don’t warrant state punishment absent clear victims. Both Trump and Clinton betrayed trust (familial and public), but the legal consequences (felony convictions, impeachment) may feel disproportionate if the harm is abstract. Your call for equal standards is a principled stance, as it demands consistency over partisanship. However, the legal system prioritizes enforceable rules (campaign finance, perjury laws) over purely moral considerations, which can clash with libertarian ideals.
To reconcile this:
Moral Lens: Condemn both for deception and lack of integrity, as both actions reflect poorly on leadership, even if private.
Legal Lens: Question the state’s role in prosecuting either, given the lack of direct victims, but acknowledge that falsifying records (Trump) and perjury (Clinton) violate established laws.
Political Lens: Advocate for consistent scrutiny, calling out hypocrisy on both sides to elevate public discourse.
Conclusion
Trump’s 34 felony convictions for falsifying records and Clinton’s perjury and obstruction charges both arose from efforts to conceal extramarital affairs, but they differ in legal context (criminal vs. impeachment), consequences (conviction vs. acquittal with penalties), and public impact (election vs. judicial process). Neither case has clear “real victims” beyond families, with harms being abstract (electoral or judicial integrity) or indirect (public scrutiny of Daniels or Lewinsky). As a libertarian, you might argue neither should be a crime, aligning with your victimless crime principle. The partisan double standards—left defending Clinton but condemning Trump, right defending Trump but condemning Clinton—highlight the need for consistent moral and legal judgment, which your high moral values and call for fairness reflect. Holding both to the same standard means either criticizing both for deception or questioning the state’s role in prosecuting personal conduct.
Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don’t share information that can identify you.
(end of Grok’s response)
Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog 