A Time Lesson From Kobe

There are only two days you cannot control: The day you are born and the day you die. Everything in between is the result of your choices -Odu Ifa (Paraphrased). I'm not gonna lie and say thet Kobe was a huge influence on my life and I'm shook up and all of that. He wasn't. That doesn't mean that his untimely death does not have an impact. When people who are young pass away it always gets my attention. Usually, these deaths are either due to violence or avoidable health issues. That Bryant had to go in such a tragic way reminded me of a mental change I had about 2 years ago. And it started with this video:

Same video, different time:

The part that got me: "no you don't have 8 years with them, you have 16 times with them." This made me look at my life and relationships a lot differently. I'm at a point in my life that, based on statistics, I have more life behind me than ahead of me. Time seems to go faster simply because I have so much time in the rearview. So now most mornings, I wake up before the alarm goes off. If I am awakened by the alarm, I no longer hit the snooze. I don't go over to the sofa and sleep another 10 minutes. If I don't have a run scheduled, I walk at 7AM for an hour. A lot of time if I'm sitting doing nothing, I'll ask myself, is this really what you want to do with your time? Is this the best you can do with your time? Must you watch that re-run?

I hope that prior to Kobe's tragic death, he was taking advantage of his time. Most don't come to the time realization in their early 40s but many do. And this is a very large lesson I hope that people gather from this tragedy: How are you spending your time. Are you spending it with people you love or are you in a routine just trying to get the day to end? I submit to you that living to "get to the end of the day" is not what you should be doing. It is better that Kobe died while trying to have quality time with the people he loved, than sitting at home watching TV alone, waiting to [physically] die.

The last thing I want to add here is about Kobe's rape allegation. No, don't go rolling your eyes. Let's assume that he did what he was accused of. Karma came for him with 4 daughters. Now most times when people talk "karma" they mean it as a kind of universal revenge that has to mean some suffering. Not so. I'm certain that at some point Kobe looked at his daughters and thought: damn, would I have wanted my daughter to be in that situation? Would I be defensive of such behavior if that was my daughter? Kobe's daughters was his karma. He had to "make it right" for those closest to him and it seems he lived up to that. It may not satisfy those who want to make that situation the defining moment of his life, but Karma is not always so neat.

So my condolences to the family and my wishes to all to [re]evaluate what you're doing with your remaining time.

Was The Base Leader a Govt. Agent?

So prior to the Va 2A rally I wrote about the psy-op going on where various so called "white supremacist" groups and persons would be put before the public in an obvious attempt to smear the citizens of Va. I also commented that any persons would likely be agents or other "false flag" type persons. Soon thereafter there was an announcement of arrests of people involved with an organization called "The Base". Now we find out that the leader of that organization may in fact be a government operative. Here's The Guardian:

Beginning in 2009 and until as late as 2019, Nazzaro billed himself as an intelligence expert working with various government and military agencies.

Nazzaro is the principal of an LLC called Omega Solutions International (OSI), a company offering a range of intelligence and security contracting.

Its website, which was removed from the Internet sometime after August 2019, boasted of the firm’s “experience conducting intelligence analysis for government agencies, military organizations, and private businesses”, as well as access to a network of seasoned security professionals with expertise in counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, homeland security, hostage rescue/negotiations, psychological operations, and more.

The firm also has a Cage Code, which is an administrative requirement for military and government contractors.

Materials inspected and sources consulted by the Guardian indicate that Nazzaro, as “Spear”, has faced persistent suspicions from current and former members of the group that he is a “fed”, or the agent of a foreign government, or that the Base is a “honeypot” intended to lure neo-Nazis out into the open for the benefit of law enforcement agencies.

Former members have cited this as a reason for leaving.

Not shocked. And:

The Guardian has discovered that all of the business addresses associated with Nazzaro’s OSI LLCs are “virtual offices”. This describes a situation where a second company provides a business address, and sometimes meeting rooms and greeting services, for businesses who do not wish to maintain their own premises.

The addresses are often prestigious: OSI’s virtual address locations include Fifth Avenue in Manhattan and K Street in Washington DC, an address associated with federal government contracting and lobbying.

*Chuckle*

Funding Religion or Funding Students?

The Washington Post has a piece on a pending SCOTUS case involving school vouchers and religious schools.

Parents who believe religious schools such as Stillwater absolutely are the places for their children are at the center of what could be a landmark Supreme Court case testing the constitutionality of state laws that exclude religious organizations from government funding available to others. [My underlines]

Keep an eye on the underlined statement and keep this question in mind: Is the state funding religious organizations or funding citizens educational choices?

In this case, the issue rests on whether a scholarship fund supported by tax-deductible donations can help children attending the state’s private schools, most of which are religious.

So citizens voluntarily fund a scholarship program that is handed out to children to attend [private] schools.

And Montana told the court that, as in 37 other states, it is reasonable for its constitution to prohibit direct or indirect aid to religious organizations.

“The No-Aid Clause does not prohibit any religious practice,” Montana said in its brief. “Nor does it authorize any discriminatory benefits program. It simply says that Montana will not financially aid religious schools.”

It is one thing for a state to not directly fund a religious institution. That would indeed set a "Church-State" conflict. But the so-called "indirect" rule is, in my opinion, unconstitutional because it dictates to the citizens what they can spend their tax dollars on. The state has no authority to dictate to citizens how they can spend their money short of criminal enterprises.

The Montana case is prompted by a 2015 decision by the state’s legislature to create a tax-credit program for those who wanted to donate to a scholarship fund. The program allowed dollar-for-dollar tax credits to those who donated up to $150 to an organization that provides aid to parents who want to send their children to private school. [My underlines]

Again note that the money is given to parents who decide where their children will go to school. The state has no business telling a parent where they can send their children to school (again short of criminal enterprises) AND by telling parents they cannot exercise what they see as their duty to provide a religious education for their children, they have stepped on their free exercise rights.

If the people on Montana did not want to provide funds to religious organizations then they should not have set up the government organized scholarship program at all. Which the Montana Supreme Court did:

But Montana, in its brief to the Supreme Court, said the state’s high court took the only option that made sense of both the state’s constitution and its obligation not to single out the religious — striking down the tax-credit program for both religious and nonreligious private schools.

So what's the problem?

The plaintiffs “now contend that even that is unconstitutional,” wrote Washington lawyer Adam Unikowsky, who is representing the Montana Department of Revenue. “It matters not, in Petitioners’ view, that the government also does not aid similarly situated nonreligious schools. . . . Petitioners claim that the Constitution prohibits the bare act of applying a state constitutional provision that keeps government out of the business of aiding religious schools.”

This is plain overreach by the plaintiffs. You cannot on the one hand claim that you have a right to funds on equal terms and on the other claim that the state owes you a program. The state owes the plaintiffs no such thing. The decision by the Montana high court was right. I don't think there is much for SCOTUS to do here. At the bare minimum, plaintiffs who felt they were discriminated against while the program was in effect can argue for relief or remedy for that past action. Other than that all the SCOTUS can really do is affirm the all or none that the free exercise clause implies.

If Guns Kill People

And so the 2A march/gathering in Richmond Virginia went off without the slightest bit of violence. Blackface/Klansman governor Northam was no doubt disappointed that his fake news alarmist bullshit announcement about "credible threats of violence" did not result in actual violence a-la-Charlottesville. He sent out a lie-filled message about how the police "de-escalated", when in fact there was nothing to "de-escalate". The people said they were coming to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to petition the government while exercising their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. That was all.

So since there were perhaps more guns per square mile in that rally than are in anywhere in the US that is not a military installation, one has to seriously question the sanity of anyone who still posits that guns kill people rather than people kill people, sometimes with guns.

While we are myth busting, We have also shown that so called "right-wing gun nuts" are not the type to cause violence. Notice that in the absence of "Antifa" "counter-protesters" there wasn't a problem. In stark contrast to almost anywhere else they show up.

Also, there were quite a number of black people, some armed, at this rally. I know, they must either be:

1) Cooning for the white man.
2) Buck dancing for the white man.
3) Uncle Tomming for the white man
4) Boot licking the white man's boots. You know there were a lot of boots around.

But most certainly these black people were not simply citizens who enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms whether to sport shoot with, simply have and/or to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property. But be it understood that it doesn't matter if there were black (or other) people there or not. A citizen's rights are not determined by their race. If the crowd had been 100% white then that is not a problem, any more than if a 100% black crowd marched anywhere, like say the Million Man March.

I saw a comment to the effect that in NY black people get jailed for having guns while "white supremacists" can march around VA. This silly person fails to understand that if NYS did not have unconstitutional gun laws in effect that black men, who are not criminals or engaging in criminal behavior, would NOT be locked up for gun possession. The problem is the law and the idiots writing and passing them, not so-called "white supremacists" in Va or elsewhere.

This is just like how these liberals miss that Eric Garner was arrested and died due to laws passed by liberal Democrats that criminalize selling "loosies" with the excuse of "saving the children" when it is, in fact, a matter of protecting the [huge] tax revenue from taxed tobacco products.

Lastly, there were a number of people, online mostly, that told people not to show up in VA yesterday. Shame on them. On the one hand I understand the desire to not be involved in a setup. And I certainly understand not wanting to get into physical conflicts with Antifa, an organization that enjoys much friendly media coverage. However; Antifa and FBI agents posing as neo-nazis should not dissuade citizens from exercising their rights. Do not give in to the heckler's veto.

So When Does Biden Get Arrested?

So the GAO released a report yesterday that Trump broke the law when he withheld money appropriated by Congress to Ukraine.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.

Once again here is Joe Biden discussing one of his trips to Ukraine:

I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk (sp) that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't. So they said they had were walking out the press kind of said I'm not gonna go or we're not gonna give you the billion dollars, they said you have no authority you're not the president. The president said, I said 'Call him'. I said I'm telling you you're not getting a billion dollars. I said you're not getting a billion...

Say GAO, why weren't you interested when Joe Biden and Obama (since Biden said Obama was on board) substituted his own policy priorities for those that Congress enacted into law? Where was the report? Did anyone even investigate?

It doesn't matter if the delay was 6 seconds or 6 months. Joe clearly "substituted his own policy" and threatened to withhold money. Isn't that the so-called "crime" that Trump is being impeached for? If it wasn't a crime under Biden, how is it a crime now?

Also since the GAO wants to say the following:

524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998) (the Constitution does not authorize the President “to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes”). Instead, he must “faithfully execute” the law as Congress enacts it. U.S. Const., art. II, § 3.

Then why didn't the GAO charge president Obama of violation of immigration law, as passed by Congress, when he created DACA and DAPA out of thin air? Since that, according to the GAO is a "violation of law" and therefore a "crime", Why wasn't Obama impeached? Serious question since the GAO says that the president can't NOT execute the laws passed by Congress.

The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation. See B-135564, July 26, 1973.

So again, since Biden clearly made a "unilateral" decision to withhold funds from Ukraine until a prosecutor who was investigating the company Biden's son worked for, was fired. It would seem to me that the GAO should have investigated the action and declared the Joe was in "violation of law". Didn't happen. Why not?

The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligation—but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special message—by proposing a “deferral.”4 2 U.S.C. § 684. The President may also seek the permanent cancellation of funds for fiscal policy or other reasons, including the termination of programs for which Congress has provided budget authority, by proposing a “rescission.”5 2 U.S.C. § 683. In either case, the ICA requires that the President transmit a special message to Congress that includes the amount of budget authority proposed for deferral or rescission and the reason for the proposal. 2 U.S.C. §§ 683–684.

So when Biden said he was getting on the plane and if they didn't do what he asked right then and there, he had already notified Obama to notify Congress that he was holding up money? Cause it's not like he didn't get on the plane not already knowing what he was going to do. So I'd like to see that paperwork.

F.B.I. Arrests Suspected Neo-Nazis Before Gun Rally

They are reaaaaaaaally putting the 'racist" angle to work. Here's the NYT

A sense of crisis enveloped the capital of Virginia on Thursday, with the police on heightened alert and Richmond bracing for possible violence ahead of a gun rally next week that is expected to draw white supremacists and other anti-government extremists.

Citizens? Concerned, perhaps angry citizens? No? Not even subtle.

The unease increased after the F.B.I. announced the arrest on Thursday of three armed men suspected of being members of a neo-Nazi hate group, including a former Canadian Army reservist, who had obtained weapons and discussed participating in the Richmond rally. The men were linked to The Base, a group that aims to create a white ethnostate, according to the F.B.I.

That's interesting. A Canadian. Tell me more.

The three men taken into custody on Thursday morning were part of a long-running investigation into an extremist group known as The Base. The men were charged with various federal crimes in Maryland, according to the Justice Department.

Wait. What? These guys have been under a "long running investigation"? Since the election was in November...

In November, the F.B.I. arrested Richard Tobin, a young man in New Jersey, who was suspected of recruiting on behalf of The Base and of advocating violence, including the killing of black people with a machete.

New Jersey. In November?

Mr. Lemley and Mr. Bilbrough were charged on Thursday with transporting and harboring aliens along with conspiracy. Prosecutors also charged Mr. Lemley and Mr. Mathews with transporting a firearm and ammunition with the intent of committing a felony. The complaint also charges Mr. Mathews with possessing a firearm and ammunition while being in the country illegally.

Whole cities and states are harboring aliens yet none of the people involved manage to have "long running investigation" run against them. Amazing how immigration law gets enforced on the "right kind of people".

Although the charges were not directly linked to the Richmond rally, law enforcement officials said the three men had discussed attending it. Adherents of extremist groups have been beating the drums for people to participate.

So, this whole announcement connecting these yahoos to the Va gun rights rally was a fraud. Thanks for putting that out there 2/3rds the way down the page.

Militia members from as far away as Nevada and Oklahoma have announced they will attend — some of them tracked by the Hatewatch research staff at the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as the Anti-Defamation League.

Where American citizens rights are being trampled, the $PLC and ADL are not far away.

Several Confederate militias are also planning to attend the Richmond rally after attending an annual march in Lexington, Ky., the Lee-Jackson Day Rally, that honors the Civil War leaders on the weekend before Martin Luther King’s Birthday.

Those militias include the Heirs to the Confederacy, the League of the South and a newer group, the United Confederates of the Carolinas and Virginia, said Dr. Squire, the professor who follows online chatter.

Leaders of various chapters of the Light Foot Militia, including from Pennsylvania, South Carolina and New York, said they also planned to be in Richmond. Some were banned from Charlottesville after the “Unite the Right” rally there.

Richard B. Spencer, one of 24 defendants in a lawsuit over the rally in Charlottesville, told Alex Jones, the founder of Infowars, that he might join him in Richmond, but it was unclear whether either would show up.

So the message here is that this is a 'racist" rally attended by racists and if you are around these people then you too are a racist. because the 2nd Amendment (and first) are racist. No chance that not racist citizens of Virginia could have a good faith reason to rally.

If you can't see the glaring psy-op going on in that article, I don't know what to tell you.

Manchester Joins Rotherham

Apparently, if you're not white you can get your buddies and gang rape multiple white girls in England. The police, too busy policing naughty comments on the internet won't bother you because policing non-white rapists would be racist.

Talk about white privilege.

Clearly it's racist to expect non-whites to not rape. It's apparently a part of our culture and genes, like curly hair and dark skin. See white girl. Rape!

So Manchester joins Rotherham and Halifax in the shame of not policing non-whites who commit sex crimes (and who knows what else).

Children were raped and abused by up to 100 members of a Manchester grooming gang sixteen years ago - but despite police and social workers knowing what was happening they weren’t stopped.

At least 57 young girls are thought to have been exploited by a paedophile network based in south Manchester. They were hooked on drugs, groomed, raped and emotionally broken - one youngster, aged fifteen, died.

But Meghan Markle is moving to Canada yo.

- Social workers knew that one 15-year-old girl, Victoria Agoglia, was being forcibly injected with heroin, but failed to act. She died two months later.

- Abusers were allowed to freely pick up and have sex with Victoria and other children from city care homes, ‘in plain sight’ of officials.

- Greater Manchester Police dropped an operation that identified up to 97 potential suspects and at least 57 potential victims. Eight of the men went on to later assault or rape girls.

- As recently as August 2018, the Chief Constable refused to reopen the dropped operation.

"Known". "In plain sight. "Dropped".

Exactly what are these folks being paid to do? Because if you can't protect the children from people you already know about, what good are you?

Bernie And Warren Sitting At A Table

I didn't watch the "debates". I've seen the adverts, I know what they are proposing. Not interested. The latest attack on Bernie is interesting for a few reasons though.

Firstly, we recall that the DNC threw the race to Hillary and did what it could to sideline Sanders. Apparently, they have not learned the lesson from that. Sanders remains very popular despite Joe Biden continuing to lead for reasons that remain a logical mystery. To see CNN, an arm of the DNC, call Sanders a liar when it was supposed to be a "moderator" was typical. Hopefully, those who still think CNN is "news" finally "get it."

Secondly, let's assume that the comment was actually made by Sanders. I seriously doubt that the manner in which it has been presented to the public is accurate. One can, in fact, say that a woman cannot be president, without actually impugning women as a class. It is entirely possible that Sanders made the comment (assuming he did) in the context that he believes that the country is too sexist to hand the highest office in the land to a woman. Hence the comment would be a condemnation of the voting public rather than any woman running for office.

The problem for Bernie is that he would have to explain this and we all know that the clip of "yes I said it" would be taken and repeated out of context. Hence his best move, assuming he said it, was to deny saying it. I get it. But that's not even the biggest point imo.

The larger point here is that Democrats, Warren in particular, are shown that they cannot be trusted to keep private conversations private. If I'm in a private meeting with a person and we have a frank conversation on a topic and you decide that because you're looking to advance yourself, you should reveal the contents of said conversation, then you are not a trustworthy person. That makes you an opportunist. Now we already know Warren is an opportunist. She played Indian for years and made money off of it. You'd think that the voting public would put her out of office over that massive "cultural appropriation" (AKA "lie) and she'd have dropped out before Harris and Booker. So the fact that she is still a 'viable" candidate with that massive lie on her resume tells us that not only are Democrats OK with such opportunists but that they have no problem with such violations of confidentiality.

I think that reflects poorly on the qualifications of Warren.

It did, however; reflect well on Sanders. Perhaps he knew there was a hot mic. Maybe not. However; his "lets not do this here" was the highest of high ground to take after that conflict. I respect Sanders for maintaining that a topic of conversation that was had in private should have stayed in private. Doesn't mean I support Sanders the candidate though.

Meanwhile, Warren is left playing the "I have a vagina" card. Worked very well for Hillary Clinton.

Va Gov Makes 2nd Amendment a Racial Issue

Va Gov, Ralph (Black face or KKK) Northam, went and declared a state of emergency for the upcoming rally to be held at the state capital. This naked aggression against the citizens of Virginia is not surprising given the previous discussions of sending in the military and thee budgeting for jailing citizens who resist the planned "gun control" legislation. What caught me off guard was the attempt to link these upcoming protests to Charlottesvile.

Northam is raising concerns about a reprise of the deadly violence surrounding the white supremacist march in Charlottesville in August 2017. He said state intelligence analysts have identified threats and rhetoric online that mirror the chatter they were picking up around that time.

"Please know that we have been preparing extensively to protect public safety at Monday's rally. But no one wants another incident like the one we saw in Charlottesville in 2017," Northam said.

Know that this is by no means an accident. Not only is Northam projecting that the defense of the natural right to self-defense, including with a firearm, as protected by the constitution, is a "racist" and/or "White Supremacist" thing, but he is making the argument that persons and groups holding such views present a danger to the public.

Never mind that the report on Charlottesville showed that the violence that occurred there was a direct result of the failure of the relevant authorities to enforce the first amendment rights of those who had the permit, but a desire on the part of the relevant authorities to have the protestors "have it out" in order to create a state of emergency. This lead to the death of Heather Heyer.

Secondly, it is known by those in law enforcement that [white] NRA types are not the type to "call in threats of violence" against people holding rallies. This is almost entirely an [P]Antifa thing.

I honestly, 100% do not believe that any real "right-wing militia" from either in or out of state threatened any kind of violence for Jan 20. I believe that Northam is either lying or such commentary came from Antifa or Antifa sympathetic groups or persons, false flagging. Why? Because real, racist, white supremacist militia groups could care less what comes out of the statehouse. They will keep their guns and fire on any state asset that tries to take them.

Anyway, once again I think that the happenings in VA are extremely important. This issue could bring the 2nd amendment up the highest court if it doesn't become an actual shooting conflict. The issue of whether those in law enforcement and military will fire on/kill citizens who are claiming their rights under the constitution may come to the fore. Will Virginia fill its jails with political prisoners? Heck, will northern VA split from the rest of the state?

McCain's Ghost

The US and Iran are at it again. Never mind that the voters who put Trump in office wanted out of Middle Eastern conflicts. 2020 Brings us McCain's Ghost as Trump threatens to bomb, bomb Iran.

However; I don't think there is much "controversial" about the drone strike was a war crime, I don't think it is since as far as I know, Iraq is a war zone, The now deceased general is a legitimate military target and Congress long ago allowed military action in Iraq, but doesn't have the constitutional authority to say how that military action takes place.

Besides, most of the people complaining now didn't have problems with the drone strikes done by Obama, some of which killed non-combatants. The difference here, in my opinion, is that the US was driven by a "please don't hurt us" fear under the previous admin, versus "Meet the 'bully' head on" position of the current one. Standing up to an adversary always carries risk. That's the nature of the game.

And a "game" is what it is. Which brings me to the actual point of this post. I'm old enough to recall the Iran crisis under president Carter. I also know enough history to know that the US has been meddling in Iran for a long time.

In the early 1950s a struggle for control of the Iranian government developed between the shah and Mohammad Mosaddegh, a zealous Iranian nationalist. In March 1951 Mosaddegh secured passage of a bill in the Majles (parliament) to nationalize the vast British petroleum interests in Iran. Mosaddegh’s power grew rapidly, and by the end of April Mohammad Reza had been forced to appoint Mosaddegh premier. A two-year period of tension and conflict followed. In August 1953 the shah tried and failed to dismiss Mosaddegh and, after riots broke out, fled the country. Several days later, however, Mosaddegh’s opponents, with the covert support and assistance of the United States and the United Kingdom, restored Mohammad Reza to power.

This later lead to:

The shah traveled to Egypt, Morocco, The Bahamas, and Mexico before entering the United States on October 22, 1979, for medical treatment of lymphatic cancer. Two weeks later Iranian militants seized the U.S. embassy in Tehrān and took hostage more than 50 Americans, demanding the extradition of the shah in return for the hostages’ release. Extradition was refused, but the shah later left for Panama and then Cairo, where he was granted asylum by Pres. Anwar Sadat.

The rest, as is said, is history.

Later we funded "our guy in Iraq", Saddam Hussein to be the front against Iran. We paid good too. Here's Saddam meeting with Bush (spit) man, Rumsfeld.

I'm here to review your progress...

Saddam was known to use chemical agents against Iranian troops. Something known to be a "war crime" but didn't bother those in the US security apparatus because, Iran.

Of course, Saddam got caught out there in the Kuwait trap and ended up on the short end of the Bush stick.

Here's a medal of honor for all that work you did for us

And here we are in 2020 still dickering about in Iraq and Iran.

Of course a "new" wrinkle in this is the whole Islamic State thing in Syria and Iraq, which Iran and Russia has been fighting against and the US has been arming (calling them freedom fighters against Assad. lol).

So while the drone strike makes sense within the confines of the "logic" used within these neo-con circles, I go back to the voters who put Trump in office. They wanted out of the Middle East. Now more troops are headed there.

Wherefore Art Thou Black Man?

Late last year I wrote about how the mass migration of Africans into Europe was fueled in part by the abuse of microlending money as well as money gathered by families of people who often stole said money to make the trip. Here is another piece on the devastating consequences of mass migration out of Africa.

Left Behind by Migrant Husbands, Women Break The Rules and Go To Work

Before I start the quote it should be known that African woman have always "worked". Now the "kinds" of work may be different but it's work none the less. So the headline is misleading.

KOUTIA, Senegal — Years had passed since her husband had crossed the sea to look for work in Europe. Left behind, Khadijah Diagouraga trudged to the couple’s peanut fields alone every day, struggling to earn enough to provide for an extended family of 13.

Imagine leaving your family of 14 (13 kids plus wife) to go live on the streets of Paris begging for a job from the racist white man. For years.

Her husband is probably among these fellows.

When the town’s water pump broke and her faucet went dry, she tied a donkey to a cart to haul water from a nearby well, cursing her absent husband the whole way. Her action shocked this small, conservative village in rural Senegal. Guiding animals was men’s work, village leaders said.

When I read this part the first thing I was like, ummm are there no people who know how to fix a faucet? Oh right

They'd rather be on the streets of Paris then provide plumbing for their wives and kids in Africa

Imagine for a moment, you who live in a developed country, your faucet breaks and so rather than being able to call a plumber you have to load up with buckets and hike to the nearest river, creek, whatever to get your water.

“It’s not a sight I ever wanted to see,” said Baba Diallo, 70, sitting in the shade of a dried cornstalk canopy, shaking his head as if to rid himself of the memory

Say Baba, Why don't you fix the faucet? My mechanic is in his 70s so age isn't an excuse. I suppose it's just too much work to get out from under that tree.

Across West Africa, villages have been emptied of husbands and sons in their prime who set out for Europe to look for work and never returned. Women, realizing they might never see the money their men promised to send home, have gradually taken on what are seen as men’s roles, earning money and running large households of in-laws and other extended family members.

Black wives matter.

“There are a couple men who look down on me,” Ms. Diagouraga said. “I ignore them. What matters to me is hard work.”

But they cannot even fix a faucet.

Many of Senegal’s migrants come from sun-bleached flatlands near Koutia in the east that rely almost entirely on peanuts and a handful of other crops for income, even as a yearslong drought shows no sign of letting up.

Many working-age men here have given up. The village chief of Koutia estimates that in little more than one generation, 200 men from the 95 households have migrated to Europe. Many were the family’s chief earners.

Senegal is on the edge of the Sahara, but it's not the only country bordering (or full of) large sand. Sometime there needs to be a change of occupation. That aside from that, look at that depopulation number!

The lure of Europe is on display in Senegal’s villages. Amid the clusters of shabby mud-brick homes are houses made of cement, some two stories tall, painted and surrounded by cement walls. All were paid for with money sent home by migrants.

But can't invest in teaching plumbing as a craft so that one can simply call a man when the faucet breaks...

They saw the satellite dishes on rooftops and neighbors clutching iPhones. Then there was the shiny, tiled mosque with towering minaret, which the village chief bragged had been built with money pooled from local migrants. A few villagers could even afford cars.

Hey village chief, there's a broken faucet in need of repair...

Ms. Diagouraga’s husband, Mohamed Diawara, had bought a small automated mill to grind millet and corn to sell. But fuel for the device was expensive, and it was constantly breaking down. Farming was tough, too. Each harvest seemed smaller than the one before. Mr. Diawara had only one donkey to help him till the soil, while his neighbors had sophisticated plows.

Business opportunity for the owner of the "sophisticated plows": Rent the plow to neighbor for a cut of his harvest and invest in plumbing school.

Mr. Diawara had been saving to buy a new part for his mill, but told his wife he wanted to use the money instead to pay smugglers to take him to Italy. She knew it was dangerous; three men from Koutia had died trying that same year. Stay and we’ll make it work, Ms. Diagouraga pleaded.

Smuggle to Italy. Sounds like a better plan.

Work in Europe is far from guaranteed for many migrants. Mr. Diawara said in a telephone interview that he was sharing a room with four other men and sometimes went days without eating. His salary working day jobs on a cleaning crew was too little. He couldn’t afford to go home.

Was broke in Senegal. Now broke in Italy, in a room full of men. Hungry. I wonder if this could have gone differently.

And then she got to work, soaking beans for dinner and sweating as she ran behind a donkey, urging it to hoist pails of water from a deep well.

Some of the village’s few remaining young men were sprawled nearby in the shade. They lifted their heads to watch her on that baking afternoon.

“I pray God will help her see the fruits of her labor,” said Hamidou Diawara, 19. They had been there for hours doing nothing, Mr. Diawara said, daydreaming about sailing to Europe.

Not a single MOFO even offered to help.

USA Today's Other PsyOp

At the bottom of the piece I pointed to in the previous post was the following:

In NYC at least, nearly 100% of the attacks against Jews in generally and 100% of the attacks in the last 2 weeks have been by people who do not do the "Heil swastica". If it were you would have been told they were "white supremacists" from day one.

USA Today Runs PsyOP Against It's Readers

The 2016 election showed that much of themainstream media, both left and right, are simply propaganda organs for the interests of the elites. If it were not so then the election of Trump would not have surprised any of them because they would have known there was a large body of people who were not happy with both establishment Republicans or Democrats. But beyond presidential politics, the media, particularly that on the left has been keen to push narratives upon the population in a way to shape opinion towards (or against) certain ways of thinking they have deemed "problematic".

In NLP (Neuro-linguistic Programming) It is taught that you can essentially plant ideas in people's heads by speaking to them in a particular manner. One way of doing this is by speaking in ways that limits perceived options. The trick works because of the way the brain generally works. If you tell someone the sky is red even though it is not, the brain first accepts the statement as true and THEN evaluates the statement. So for a split second (or longer if you're not too bright) you believe the sky is red. Now a "red sky" statement is easy to dismiss but when it comes to things we are either already predisposed to disbelieve or *to believe* the process of negating a statement becomes much harder and generally takes much longer.

A person who is aware that he may be being programmed trains themselves to always ask "who, whom, what and why". The things journalists are supposed to do for a living but don't. The recognize choice limiting statements for what they are. Which brings us to USA Today.

Here's USA Today on the shooting in Texas:

Jack Wilson is a hero alright. It took him only six seconds to kill a gunman at a Texas church, saving countless lives. Unfortunately, that kind of split-second heroism has been turned into a PR tool by gun advocates.

The reality of Wilson's heroism is a lot more complex. He wasn’t just an ordinary parishioner, as gun advocates may want you to believe. The church’s volunteer security team member is a firearms instructor, gun range owner and former reserve deputy with a local sheriff’s department, according to a New York Times detailed account.

In other words, he’s exactly the kind of man you want around with a firearm. But we know nothing about the at least six other parishioners who also appeared to draw their handguns at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas.

And that's terrifying. [My underlines]

Note how this "opinion" writer is telling you that people armed for self-defense is "terrifying".

For those susceptible to feel fear whenever a gun is mentioned, this serves as a reinforcement. For those who aren't there yet, this is a strong suggestion that is taken by them as truth:

I should be terrified of people I don't know having guns.

Why?

The writer could have easily written the piece in such a way to not invoke fear in their audience. They chose to program rather than inform.

Then the writer brings in an argument that has never been made:

But have we really reached a point when each of us need to carry a firearm anywhere we go? Gun advocates certainly think so. They point to Wilson and the new Texas law that allows him and others to carry firearms inside the church.

Gun advocates make no such claim that "each of us *need*" to carry anything. Gun advocates point out that the supreme legal document of the land states that the right of people to bear arms, "if they so choose", shall not be infringed. That is each of us has a right, derived from nature and *protected* by law to defend ourselves with arms which includes things OTHER than guns. If you an individual choose to not do so, you don't have to. But you don't get to choose whether someone else can be armed.

Then there is the Big Lie:

But have we really reached a point when each of us need to carry a firearm anywhere we go? Gun advocates certainly think so. They point to Wilson and the new Texas law that allows him and others to carry firearms inside the church.

This is demonstrably false. For example, felons are prohibited by law to have firearms. They can only get one by breaking the law. Anyone can "get" a firearm if they are willing to commit a crime to get one. But by that argument, anyone can be a murderer too. All you have to do is kill someone. The law-abiding usually have to get permits, take classes, pass background checks and wait a specified amount of time before obtaining a firearm. Crooks don't go through all that. Perhaps that's the problem.

So here's a tip for those who are interested: If you see a "news" piece that says that you should [insert negative emotional state] by events that have nothing to do with you, you should consider that message a psyop on you. No one who really wants to inform you will try to instill a state of negative emotions on you about an event or thing that doesn't immediately affect you.