Blue saboteurs                          

During Barak Hussein Obama's first term, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell infamously remarked that GOP office-holders should endeavor to ensure Obama would not win a second time.

McConnell was wrong to encourage partisan non-cooperation. Politicians of all descriptions should work together, whenever possible, to advance public interests. (Though maintaining bedrock positions necessarily precludes consistent harmony.)

Since President Trump was first buoyed to the Resolute Desk by tens of millions of average American patriots, Democrat bureaucrats great and small have conspired to foil his every ambition. Nevermind that citizens selected Trump and his policy directions by overwhelming margins, by both popular and electoral measures.

Plainly put: Most people didn't (and don't) want the wares Democrats hawk. Rather than examining their values for appropriate overhaul, Democrats seek to foment chaos. ('If we can't rule, nobody can!')

Democrats' attitude is basically the Marxist one, that revolutionary triumph depends on popular despair and the collapse of existing social, political, and economic constructs. 

One example of purposeful interference in American order: unelected members of the judicial bench striving mightily to block Trump's every effort. Jurists at federal and state levels robotically rule against our president. Their determined malfeasance waves from areas including immigration law, executive branch authority, criminal justice policies, finance, and even national sovereignty enforcement.

Black-robed malefactors likely know their skullduggery may not survive higher courts' review. But even should their gumming-up of Trump's common-sense animations prove fleeting, they'll have done what they could for the larger scheme.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sometimes admonishes President Trump for his reasonable criticisms of small-pond gavel-graspers. Perhaps Roberts reasons that presidential scolding will somehow weaken public regard for the judicial system, and could encourage Democrat efforts to pack the high court, itself. 

But courts' reputations already flail in filth. When minor judges hasten to impair popularly endorsed executive performance, and to defy Constitutional principles, Supreme Court precedents, and just-plain common sense, severe damage has already been wrought.

None of which concerns those whose mission is disruption. Then, power.

Google AI defames Soros critic                                                        

In August, I noticed that Google AI had defamed me in an online note. 

A search of "DC Larson" "George Soros" turned up a Google AI advisory which said, in part: "Soros has been the target of many political attacks and conspiracy theories from the far right for years, often accompanied by antisemitic undertones. These accusations often claim he is secretly funding liberal and anti-police agendas to disrupt American society. Larson's commentary is part of this larger movement of criticism."

Upon noticing the false smear, I responded to Google: "It is both inaccurate and morally despicable to charge that I am part of an 'antisemitic' body of George Soros critics. The one Soros-related writing of mine cited here is a [Marshalltown, Iowa, Times-Republican] newspaper essay that quotes the man verbatim. His comments were made during a 1998 60 Minutes interview, available on Youtube. I ask that the defamatory allegation be removed."

Below is an excerpt from the essay Google AI mischaracterized.

"The amoral left-wing billionaire detailed his abhorrent collaboration during a 1998 interview with CBS reporter Steve Kroft, in a broadcast of that network's 60 Minutes," I wrote.

KROFT: 'You're a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Holocaust by posing as a Christian.'

SOROS: 'Right.'

KROFT: 'And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.'

SOROS: 'Right. I was 14 years-old. And I would say that's when my character was made.'

KROFT: 'In what way?'

SOROS: 'That one should think ahead. That one should understand and anticipate events. And when one is threatened - it was a tremendous threat of evil, a very personal experience of evil.'

KROFT: 'My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted [Christian] godson. Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.'

SOROS: 'That's right.'

KROFT: 'I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?'

SOROS: 'Not at all, not at all. Maybe as a child, you don't see the connection. But it was -- it created no problem, at all.'

KROFT: 'No feeling of guilt?'

SOROS: 'No.'

KROFT: 'For example: "I'm Jewish, and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there." None of that?'

SOROS: 'Well, of course I could be on the other side, or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets. That if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would be taking it away, anyhow.'

In a 2023 Jerusalem Post essay, Larry Pfeffer observed "By his insensitive logic, German, Japanese, and Russian soldiers could also have exclaimed that they don't need to regret raping women, since if they didn't, then someone else would have."

(In the piece, I noted that while no one should condemn a teenager for a decision made for self-preservation in terrible circumstances, Soros was elderly at the time of his 60 Minutes interview, yet still felt zero moral compunction. His adherents later insisted business-magnate Soros is typically indifferent to adverse effects his machinations might engender; I believe mental-health professionals have a name for that attitude.)

I've since found Google AI offers varying advisories about me and my Soros criticism. Many imply a connection between myself and despicable antisemites that flatly does not exist, nor ever has.

My deserved criticism of the Democrats' bankroller was of him as an individual. But Google AI, as is common in left precincts, regards him, not properly as an individual, but instead only as a group representative.

Therefore, goes the thinking, all condemnations of a single person's behavior necessarily constitute attack on any larger community of which the subject is a constituent.

Of course, that is a deceitful tactic; its leveragers surely hope it will intimidate objective voices.

I'm certainly no widely regarded commentator, and few might ever read Google AI's vile falsehood about me. But potential dangers that flawed advisories pose to influential figures and events, greatly exceed any harms my own limited personal reputation and professional fortunes might suffer. 

Should Google AI notes not be impeccable, future researchers could be misled, their output misrepresentative, and resultant historical records distorted. Fractured portrayals serve no legitimate interest.