The Durak Report September 23, Anno Domini 2026

Why does the EU care? Maybe it's fake, maybe it's real. It's really none of the EUs business.

It's official, AI is on par with Nukes.

People of Paris don't want police to be able to do their jobs.

New government wants to distance themselves from Russia; asks for permission to buy Russian energy.

From RT saying Finland's intel sees no evidence of an imminent Russian military threat.

Confirmation from politico. NATO sees no imminent threat.

What? I have words. See below.

This headline is funny. It's like they're trying to get people believe Ukraine is attacking something other than Ukrainian territory that is currently under Russian control.

It's about time they do something.

Neat. Maybe we will see the fall of debit… Hope.

I hope it happens. It'll be easy to see if something weird happens on either side that way.

Has NPR ever produced something positive of Trump? I don't buy anything from NPR regarding public policy.

It's silly that news outlets think they have some special constitutional right that's greater than the average American.

Is this a hint that New Yorkers are tired of Democrat control?

I bet, but once our two "major" bases are built, it doesn't really mater.

Does Reuters usually report on things like this? Maybe I just miss it every time I write these things, but I haven't seen much like this.

As Scott Adams used to say, Trump has a knack for creating assets out of nothing. It's obviously a bad idea to just give up that asset before getting something from China.

Smells like desperation to me, but I'm interested in Moscow's response.

Why even add jail time if it's to be served concurrently?

Woah, teens usually get off easy. +1 Michigan!

Woah, I have so many questions. See below:

Who cares? I'm just don't want the guy who hangs out with terrorist supporters.

He chooses the worst people to hang out with if he actually wants to win.

Bridge often pushes hard left, but this was a fairly balanced article. +1 Bridge Michigan!

The whole idea of the ICC is kind of silly. Unless it's governed by everyone. In which case it becomes another UN.

Thanks for reading!

I enjoy the RT history lessons. We get to see the Russian point of view of what was going on, which is interesting.

Heck, they speak poorly of Stalin, which builds credibility.

Most interestingly, the biggest reason they give for attacking Poland, was so that Germany couldn't have it. They saw what was going on and didn't want their enemies to gain a strong position to attack them from.

So, Apartheid was race based segregation within South Africa.

"South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola has denounced US President Donald Trump’s program for resettling Afrikaners, a white ethnic minority in South Africa, as refugees, describing it as “Apartheid 2.0.” "

How is inviting people to leave the country Apartheid? Also, who the hell is South Africa to condemn people over race based policies?

According to Venice AI(referral link):

South Africa has adopted at least 313 pieces of racial legislation since 1910, with at least 116 (approximately 37%) coming into effect after the advent of democracy in 1994.

The laws lead to minimum requirements for black representation, black business opportunities, and black employment.

So basically, they're about avoiding letting minority non-blacks from gaining real power.

Which, so long as they aren't harming anyone, sure whatever, that's their business, but if they are going to complain about the white refugee program, they have no room to talk.

Furthermore, what are they complaining about? That we won't let more of their citizens flee their country?

Maybe they call it "Apartheid 2.0" because they hate their country so much and want to flee to America.

"Bawwwwwwwww it's not fair that our white population gets to flee to America easier than our black population. Baaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!"

So baby girl gets dangerously drunk. This is bad.

Before getting into my questions. This baby girl was saved by the Divine. It's kinda crazy.

So her 7 year old brother got home from school, found his parents sleeping in the living room, went to check on baby sis in her pack-and-play, and saw that she wasn't responding. Big bro freaked out and 911 was called, likely saving his sisters life.

I'd like to note that this article does not mention this, but I have seen elsewhere that the brother woke up his parents since he was worried about the baby girl and it was the parents who called 911.

She apparently h ad bruising on the abdomen, head, and thigh, which may be the real issue here, but there's not enough information.

Parents say they don't know how it happened.

A family member (best I can tell, a family member that doesn't share the same home) confirmed he had put vodka in a water bottle at a family outing and lost control of it.

The parents say they must have used a bottle that had alcohol in it without noticing.

So, this is all very strange, it may be intentional, it may not be. But if all these stories add up, it may very well have been not intentional.

However, the parents were both charged with felony child neglect causing great bodily harm.

Well, if what they say is true, this was some sort of horribly accident, or someone else tried to poison the girl. And with what's been admitted, it seems fairly believable, but that's up to the courts to decide.

So they are out on bail, but are prohibited from having contact with the victim.

So… The parents, who are innocent until proven guilty, while on bail, are not allowed to see the victim. However, there was no mention that they aren't allowed to see their 7 year old boy.

Why allow either if you don't allow one? And really, pending on how young baby girl is, it's probably worse for the baby not to at least have visitation with her parents.

But it gets stranger, if they are found guilty, penalties will be determined depending on the severity of the injuries… What? Do we live in Gunsmoke land? "Oh, I know you shot the guy in both knees and blew off one of his fingers, but he's still alive, so I guess you are free to go!"

No, if they are found guilty of intentionally poisoning their daughter with alcohol, the punishment should be the same regardless of the result.

If someone shoots to kill, but fails, the punishment should be the same as if he succeeded in the kill. Just because medicine can save people doesn't mean that crime should be punished less.

That all said, I'm inclined to believe this was an accident. Especially considering that the 7 year old boy did all that he did, and that the parents made the call to police. At least an accident by the parents.

I know it's easy to think, "Well, couldn't they tell there was alcohol in the water?" well, maybe, but it's not always that simple. We simply don't have the details on what kind of water bottle was there, if it was diluted, how they prepare formula… If it's done in a way that someone is unlikely to notice alcohol in the water, they should be free. Otherwise, they should be charged with neglect, but the family should not be destroyed over this.

However, there is the possibility of someone else trying to poison the child, which is something that needs to be figured out based on whatever evidence is out there.