Clovis Star Media

10/06/2025

If reports of a James Comey indictment are accurate, it’s a stark reminder of what grows when power goes unchecked.

As some have put it, “James Comey’s indictment exposes the rot that forms when power is unchecked.”

In market terms, monopolies breed abuse; in government, concentrated, unaccountable power does the same.

The answer isn’t triumphalism or outrage; it’s consistency and fair play.

Principles we should insist on:
- One standard of justice, for friends and foes alike.
- Due process and the presumption of innocence for every person.
- Transparency where it serves the public, confidentiality where the law demands it.
- Accountability for misconduct at every level, without fear or favour.

Practical steps that would help:
- Independent special counsel rules with secure funding, fixed terms, and removal only for cause.
- Clear charging standards, and brief public explanations when cases are declined.
- Stronger whistleblower protections and safe channels to report political pressure.
- Public logs of contacts between prosecutors, investigators, and political offices.
- Cooling-off periods between partisan political roles and senior justice posts.
- Tighter surveillance oversight, with adversarial advocates and rigorous audits.
- Fast-track court review to curb abuse of secrecy and delay tactics.
- Standardized evidence-handling and retention rules, with real penalties for breaches.
- Expanded inspector general authority and timely public summaries of substantiated findings.
- Enforceable ethics agreements and mandatory recusals for conflicts, overseen by an external panel.

These are small-government guardrails that limit discretion and make incentives visible.

They align with a free society where rules, not rulers, set the terms.

If the case is solid, accountability should be firm and measured, not gleeful.

If it’s flimsy or political, that should be revealed quickly and cleanly.

Either way, we need structures that end partisan justice and make the rules stronger than the personalities.

Let’s keep our heads, insist on a consistent rule of law, and build reforms with a bit of cop on and fair play for everyone.

And if these reports prove wrong, the lesson still stands: guardrails shouldn’t depend on the jersey someone wears.

James Comey’s indictment exposes the rot that forms when power is unchecked. This commentary argues for consistent rule of law, structural reforms, and an end to partisan justice.

—Clovis Star Media

James Comey’s indictment exposes the rot that forms when power is unchecked. This commentary argues for consistent rule of law, structural reforms, and an end to partisan justice.

10/06/2025

# 📰 Clovis Star Media 📰

# # The Hostage Negotiations Chess Game: Why Skepticism Matters 🧩

When it comes to the ongoing hostage situation involving Hamas and Israel, we must approach the news cycle with informed caution. Former British Colonel Richard Kemp recently shared a perspective worth considering: Hamas may be using "hostage deal" discussions as strategic maneuvering rather than good-faith negotiation. 🤔

As academic observers of international relations, we understand that information operations are standard practice in conflict zones. This doesn't mean dismissing peace efforts outright, but rather approaching them with clear eyes and critical thinking. In situations where human lives hang in the balance, our analytical framework must be especially rigorous. 🔍

The hostage situation represents more than political chess pieces—these are human beings with families waiting desperately for their return. Any genuine resolution must prioritize their safety while establishing verifiable mechanisms for implementation. 💔

**What should responsible negotiation include?**

* Independent monitoring from neutral organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross ✅
* Transparent verification protocols for proof-of-life evidence 🔎
* Clearly defined timelines with accountability measures 📝
* Consequences for violations that don't perpetuate endless cycles of violence ⚖️

The danger lies in ambiguous "deals" that serve primarily as public relations exercises while allowing conflicts to intensify behind the scenes. We've seen this pattern repeatedly throughout history—vague commitments that lack enforcement mechanisms ultimately benefit those seeking to extend conflict. 📚

As citizens and scholars, we should question narratives from all sides while advocating for transparency. The path forward requires honesty about complex geopolitical realities while never losing sight of the humanitarian imperatives. 🕊️

When analyzing news about potential breakthroughs, ask: Who benefits from this timing? What verification mechanisms are included? Are neutral parties involved in oversight? How will this affect civilians caught in the crossfire?

Remember that conditioning support on humanitarian compliance isn't partisan—it's essential for upholding international norms and preventing the normalization of civilian suffering. 🌍

Let's advocate for approaches that prioritize human dignity over political expediency. The cycle ends when we demand better from all parties involved.

What perspectives do you bring to this complex situation? Share your thoughts below. 💭


’tBelieveThem

Former British colonel Richard Kemp has urged Israel to “not believe” Hamas are progressing with a hostage deal, as part of their doctrine is about “lying in...

10/06/2025

Success Means NOTHING Without This 💯Success Means NOTHING Without This 💯
Not the paycheck, but the backbone: principle, family, and freedom.

Clovis Star Media on the week’s noise and signal.
News moves fast; values last longer.

- If your wins cost your soul or your kids’ trust, they’re losses in disguise.
- College should be a mosh pit of ideas, not a safe space for groupthink.
- Debates should reveal truth, not just rack up zingers; fair play to Megyn Kelly, press hard but don’t play kingmaker.
- In 2025 America, choose courage over comfort, responsibility over resentment.

We don’t need more idols; we need adults.
Own your words, own your work, own the consequences.

A wee reminder from a punk rock libertarian: question power, own your life, hug your people.
Keep your spine, keep your family, keep your freedom.

—Ryan “Dickie” Thompson, Disruptarian.com

#2025

#2025

10/06/2025

10/06/2025

SERIES: “Civil Discourse vs. Political Violence” Part 3“Free speech is the foundation of peace” — a stout line to start Part 3 of the series on civil discourse and political violence from Clovis Star Media.

Ryan “Dickie” Thompson argues that silencing speech often fans the flames it seeks to douse, and that protecting even offensive words matters for the long game of peace.

Censorship can look righteous at first, but it builds grievance in the dark. When people feel their voice has been taken, they stop bargaining and start plotting; that’s where quiet anger turns noisy and dangerous.

Why protecting offensive speech matters:
- It prevents the state or mobs from deciding what thoughts are allowed and who gets to speak.
- Counter-speech lets ideas be tested in public rather than buried, reducing resentment.
- Legal bans often create martyrs or coded language, which radicalises instead of heals.

That doesn’t mean “anything goes.” Speech has consequences, and civility isn’t optional. We need norms and accountability that don’t rely on blunt censorship — community standards, transparent moderation, and legal redress for incitement rather than mere offence.

Practical steps worth considering:
1. Defend the right to speak while refusing to normalise hatred — call it out, engage it, rebut it.
2. Teach listening and debate skills early; healthier conversation starts with better tools.
3. Support independent journalism and outlets that prize nuance over clicks.
4. Hold institutions accountable for heavy-handed bans that obscure more than they solve.

From a free-market, capitalist perspective, speech is the marketplace of ideas: when ideas compete openly, the best survive and innovation flourishes. State censorship skews incentives, creates artificial winners, and chills the entrepreneurial spirit that powers a free society.

There’s a delicate balance here, and it’s easier said than done. If we value peace, we should favour the hard work of argument over the shortcut of silence.

Read Part 3 and join the discussion — politely, of course: https://disruptarian.com/blog/series-civil-discourse-vs-political-violence-part-3/

Words over weapons, always.

Free speech is the foundation of peace. In Part 3 of his series, Ryan “Dickie” Thompson explains why censorship fuels violence, why offensive speech must be protected, and why civil discourse is worth defending.

10/06/2025

Clovis Star Media

John Lydon, the voice of punk rebellion, has never been easy to pin down. From raging against the establishment in the '70s to supporting Brexit and Trump, his political evolution has shocked many. But has he really changed? Or has he simply stayed true to the one thing he’s always believed in—challenging authority, no matter who holds the power?

There’s a distinctly free-market way to read Lydon’s unpredictability: genuine skepticism of concentrated power and a stubborn insistence on individual autonomy. Punk’s anti-authoritarian core can line up with a belief that people are better off making their own choices than being managed by elites or by heavy-handed governments.

But clarity matters. Criticizing technocrats and welfare-state orthodoxy is one thing; backing politicians who expand state power in other arenas is another. Consistency on decentralizing control and expanding personal and economic freedom is the true test for someone claiming to be anti-establishment.

Here are a few useful lenses to evaluate Lydon — and anyone else who claims to be for liberty:

1. Contrarian as principle — Poking the powerful is valuable when it exposes cronyism, corporate-state collusion, or suppression of free expression.
2. Issue-by-issue pragmatist — Picking fights where hypocrisy exists can be principled, but beware cherry-picking that ignores overall policy outcomes.
3. Persona versus policy — Performance can serve commerce; genuine commitment shows up in policy preferences that protect choice and limit coercion.
4. Evolving voter — People change, but political evolution should be judged by whether it advances freedom or simply swaps one elite for another.

Punk wasn’t a policy manual — it was a cultural insistence on personal agency and defiance of needless control. If you believe in markets, limited government, and the sovereignty of the individual, then Lydon’s dissenting instincts are useful — but so is holding him accountable when his endorsements conflict with those principles.

John Lydon, the voice of punk rebellion, has never been easy to pin down. From raging against the establishment in the '70s to supporting Brexit and Trump, his political evolution has shocked many. But has he really changed? Or has he simply stayed true to the one thing he’s always believed in—challenging authority, no matter who holds the power?

So what do you think — still punk at the core, or drifted from the cause of individual liberty? Share your take.

John Lydon, the voice of punk rebellion, has never been easy to pin down. From raging against the establishment in the '70s to supporting Brexit and Trump, his political evolution has shocked many. But has he really changed? Or has he simply stayed true to the one thing he’s always believed in—c...

10/06/2025

# Clovis Star Media

# # When Did We All Lose Our Sense of Humor? The Great Sombrero Meme Debate 🎭🤣

Politics has always been a battlefield of ideas, but lately it seems like we're fighting more about memes than meaningful policy. Case in point: the recent uproar over AI-generated images showing Donald Trump wearing a sombrero, which has Democrats crying "racism" while conservatives roll their eyes. Sky News host James Morrow couldn't contain his laughter at what he sees as manufactured outrage, and honestly, it raises some interesting questions about our political discourse. 🤔

In an era where artificial intelligence can generate almost anything imaginable, we're witnessing a curious phenomenon: the weaponization of outrage as political currency. These AI-generated images – bizarre, provocative, and certainly unconventional – have sparked a firestorm that seems disproportionate to their actual significance. Is this really where we want our national attention focused? 📱💭

As an academic exercise, it's worth considering: What makes effective political satire versus harmful stereotyping? When does humor cross lines, and who gets to draw those lines? These are legitimate conversations worth having. But the knee-jerk labeling of every provocative image as "racist" without nuanced discussion diminishes the power of that term when we need it most. 📚⚖️

The performative outrage cycle has become predictable: controversial content emerges, one side condemns while the other defends, media amplifies both reactions, and substantive policy discussions take a back seat. Meanwhile, issues affecting Americans' daily lives – healthcare, education, economic opportunity – receive comparatively little passionate debate. 🌪️🏛️

Perhaps what we're witnessing isn't really about sombreros at all, but rather our collective difficulty engaging with opposing viewpoints in good faith. When political discourse devolves into a competition for who can express the most righteous indignation, we all lose. 💔🇺🇸

What do you think? Has our political conversation become too focused on symbolic battles rather than substantive ones? Can we reclaim a space for humor – even provocative humor – while still maintaining respect across cultural boundaries? Or are these memes truly harmful representations that deserve condemnation? 🗣️💬

Let's have that conversation here! And remember, it's possible to disagree without demonizing each other.

Sky News host James Morrow has reacted to the Democrats screaming “racism” over Trump’s hilarious AI sombrero memes.“As negotiations came to an impasse last ...

10/04/2025

John Lydon, the voice of punk rebellion, has never been easy to pin down. From raging against the establishment in the '70s to supporting Brexit and Trump, his political evolution has shocked many. But has he really changed? Or has he simply stayed true to the one thing he’s always believed in—challenging authority, no matter who holds the power?

Punk’s original promise was brutal clarity: question authority, celebrate individual expression, and distrust polished elites. From a free-market libertarian perspective, that instinct to distrust centralized power is a virtue—markets and voluntary exchange disperse power in ways that politics often does not.

Yet there’s a difference between healthy anti-elitism and endorsing policies or leaders that substitute one rent-seeking establishment for another. Individual freedom thrives when rule of law, property rights, and open markets are preserved, not when populist energy is funneled into protectionism or state capture.

Possible readings of Lydon’s stance:
1. A consistent contrarian — opposing whoever is in charge, left or right.
2. Class-first politics — a punk who sees mainstream politicians as disconnected elites.
3. A performer’s instinct — provocation as self-preservation in the attention economy.
4. Genuine ideological shift — people change with age, experience, and frustration.

None of these absolve responsibility. Dissent is valuable, but liberty-minded readers should ask: does a protest align with expanding individual freedom and market opportunity, or does it empower new monopolies and political favors?

Consider the practical stakes:
- Markets reward outcomes; politics rewards narratives.
- Provocation can spotlight real grievances, but policy consequences matter for entrepreneurs and families.
- If punk’s energy pushes for deregulation, competition, and decentralization, it advances liberty; if it induces protectionist or authoritarian responses, it undermines it.

At Clovis Star Media we champion entrepreneurial freedom and skeptical inquiry. Celebrate the instinct to question, but judge the results of that questioning against whether people are freer and more prosperous afterward.

So which is it — continuity or a flip? Is punk’s role merely to provoke, or to steer dissent toward freedom-enhancing solutions? Share your take, grounded in outcomes and principles.

John Lydon, the voice of punk rebellion, has never been easy to pin down. From raging against the establishment in the '70s to supporting Brexit and Trump, his political evolution has shocked many. But has he really changed? Or has he simply stayed true to the one thing he’s always believed in—challenging authority, no matter who holds the power?

— Clovis Star Media

John Lydon, the voice of punk rebellion, has never been easy to pin down. From raging against the establishment in the '70s to supporting Brexit and Trump, his political evolution has shocked many. But has he really changed? Or has he simply stayed true to the one thing he’s always believed in—c...

10/04/2025

# Mainstream Media Madness: When Freedom Becomes a "Right-Wing" Value 🤔

Hey Clovis Star readers! 📰 Today we're diving into a media clash that has everyone talking - Sky News host Rita Panahi taking on former MSNBC host Joy Reid in what can only be described as a scathing critique of modern political discourse. 🔥

As our friend Ryan Thompson — the Punk Rock Libertarian 🤘🔥 pointed out in a recent commentary, there's something deeply troubling about watching mainstream media figures seemingly advocate for limitations on free expression. The clip showing Panahi dissecting Reid's commentary reveals a concerning trend where skepticism toward authority is somehow being painted as a partisan position rather than a fundamental American value.

What's particularly fascinating (and perhaps alarming) about this media confrontation is how it highlights the shifting landscape of political identities. 🧭 When did questioning power become exclusively "right-wing"? When did advocating for individual liberties become a partisan stance? The intellectual inconsistency is striking - especially from voices that historically positioned themselves as champions against authoritarianism.

The exchange between Panahi and Reid's commentary serves as a mirror reflecting the increasing polarization in our media ecosystem. It's not simply about disagreeing on policy anymore - it appears we're witnessing fundamental disagreements about the value of free expression itself. 🗣️

As an academic exercise, it's worth considering: What happens when political tribes reverse their traditional positions on civil liberties? When skepticism of institutional power becomes coded as belonging to one political side, we all lose something precious in our democratic dialogue.

This media clash invites us to look beyond the personalities involved and examine the principles at stake. Whether you lean left, right, or somewhere in between, the freedom to question, challenge, and debate should remain sacrosanct in any healthy democracy. 🇺🇸

We encourage our Clovis community to watch the exchange for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. Critical thinking means engaging with multiple perspectives - even (especially!) those we might initially disagree with.

What do you think? Has mainstream discourse shifted toward embracing authoritarian tendencies? Or is this just another example of media figures talking past each other? Share your thoughts in the comments below! 💭



*Source: Commentary inspired by Ryan Thompson - The Punk Rock Libertarian 🤘🔥*

Sky News host Rita Panahi has savaged axed-MSNBC host Joy Reid's deranged rant.

10/04/2025

TPUSA Presents This Is the Turning Point Tour LIVE with Megyn Kelly and Governor Glenn Youngkin!Clovis Star Media — What a night — TPUSA’s Turning Point with Megyn Kelly and Governor Glenn Youngkin felt equal parts town hall and punk gig: loud, earnest, and full of sparks. I liked the heat, but I’m chasing the meat of the policies.

- Free speech arguments were spot-on and unapologetic; now translate that energy into ironclad protections in our schools. Local parents and teachers need authority, not theater.
- Economic optimism rings true, but rhetoric isn’t payroll. Show me the jobs, tax clarity, and the scaffolding that helps small businesses survive year one and year five.
- Youth engagement looked promising and electric; keep it authentic, not staged. If we want a movement that lasts, give young people real leadership roles and voting-level influence.

Thoughtful conservatism wins when it listens as well as it shouts.

Here’s what I want to see next from leaders who want my vote:
1) Concrete school-reform plans that return power to communities without federal micromanagement.
2) Measurable job-creation targets, deregulation where it helps, and targeted support for microbusinesses.
3) Transparent youth initiatives led by youth, with mentorship, funding, and follow-through.

Keep the amps cranked and the ideas sharper. Loud is great — proof is better.

Sláinte,
Ryan "Dickie" Thompson — the Punk Rock Libertarian
Clovis Star Media

tpusa

🔴 Subscribe to our channel ►https://bit.ly/3gi53YKSOCIAL MEDIA: 🇺🇸 Instagram ► / turningpointus...

10/04/2025

# Clovis Star Media

# # Family Debates: The Beautiful Complexity of Sibling Disagreements 🧠💕

📚 We've been reflecting on a fascinating video that recently caught our attention, showcasing two brothers who have documented their philosophical debates spanning over *twenty years*! The creator shared snippets of these profound conversations covering some of society's most challenging topics: racism, religion, and political ideologies.

What struck us most wasn't just the content of their discussions, but the remarkable resilience of their relationship despite holding fundamentally different worldviews. In today's polarized climate, this example of sustained, respectful disagreement feels both refreshing and instructive. 🌱

These siblings demonstrate something increasingly rare in our digital age - the ability to disagree without disconnecting. Their conversations weren't always comfortable (how could they be when touching on such sensitive subjects?), but they maintained the familial bond that transcended their intellectual differences. 👨‍👦

This documentary-style approach to family disagreement raises important questions about our own family dynamics. How often do we truly listen to understand rather than merely waiting for our turn to speak? Do we approach differences with curiosity instead of judgment? 🤔

Family gatherings can sometimes feel like navigating minefields of potentially explosive topics - politics at Thanksgiving, anyone? 🦃 Yet these brothers remind us that engaging with opposing viewpoints, especially from those we love, can be a profound opportunity for growth rather than a threat to our identity.

Perhaps what makes family debates unique is the shared history and inherent trust that allows for vulnerability. When we know someone has seen us at our worst and still loves us, it creates space for intellectual honesty that might not exist elsewhere.

As we consider our own family discussions, we might ask: What would change if we approached disagreements with the intention of maintaining the relationship rather than "winning" the argument? How might recording our evolving thoughts over decades reveal our own intellectual journeys?

Have you experienced meaningful debates within your family that have shaped your worldview or strengthened your relationships despite differences? We'd love to hear your stories in the comments! 💬



📺 Inspired by a YouTube video where a creator compiled 20 years of debates with their brother on topics ranging from racism to religion and politics. It reminds us that some of life's most important connections can withstand even the most challenging conversations.

For over 20 years, my brother and I have argued about racism, religion, and politics. In this video, I share parts of that conversation and explain why the l...

10/04/2025

SERIES: “Civil Discourse vs. Political Violence” Part 2Here’s a corker of a read from Part 2 of the “Civil Discourse vs. Political Violence” series with Ryan “Dickie” Thompson — his stories from tax day protests, pirate radio booths, and YouTube comment sections make a proper case that speaking wins out over smashing things. Clovis Star Media recommends this clear-eyed look at how voluntary exchange of ideas still outperforms coercion.

Dickie’s core point is simple and stubborn: public spaces, from street corners to airwaves, still have the capacity to turn strangers into interlocutors rather than enemies. That’s not naïveté — it’s practice, patience, and a willingness to listen first.

Why this matters from a free-market, pro-liberty view:
- Markets of ideas function like markets of goods: lower barriers to entry, competition, and clarity reward better arguments.
- When persuasion is the currency, persuasion wins; force distorts incentives and raises social costs.
- Grassroots institutions — protest stalls, pirate radio, comment threads — are low-cost incubators for reputations and networks.

Highlights that stood out:
- Tax day protests: ordinary citizens turned a heated moment into cold-eyed conversation and voluntary persuasion instead of escalation.
- Pirate radio: grassroots broadcasting as a cheap, effective platform for voices who lack capital but have ideas and humour.
- YouTube dialogues: messy and imperfect, yet a fertile marketplace when contributors trade clarity for hot takes.

Practical takeaways you can use:
1. Start by asking a curious question rather than landing a verdict; curiosity reduces transaction costs in conversation.
2. Name common ground early — ten seconds to identify a shared fact or value lowers friction for persuasion.
3. Moderate your tone: firmness need not equal rudeness; respect preserves future exchange.
4. Use local, tangible examples over abstract theory; concrete data and stories sell better than sweeping claims.

A few cautions worth minding:
- Dialogue isn’t a moral bandage for injustice; sometimes targeted, non-violent consequences and market-based accountability are necessary.
- Not every space is safe for vulnerable people to open up; recognise when silence is prudent self-protection.

If you value liberty, property, and the spontaneous order that emerges when people trade ideas, Dickie’s stories are a reminder that civility is an invested skill with measurable returns. Read Part 2 here: https://disruptarian.com/blog/series-civil-discourse-vs-political-violence-part-2/

What small, market-oriented step could you take this week to turn an argument into a conversation?

’tSmash

From tax day protests to pirate radio, Ryan “Dickie” Thompson shares how civil discourse in public spaces, radio, and YouTube proves dialogue works better than violence. Part 2 of the series