Thursday, December 26, 2019
Ever since I say Tom Steyer's ads about how he was a successful businessman because his business(s) did not fail, I knew he was a tool. Everyone who's been paying attention knows that Trump had some spectacular business failures. We also know that the vast majority of people who start businesses FAIL. In fact many people who now have successful businesses often failed prior to that success. In fact, failure is OFTEN a part of success. Generally speaking, those who do not fail, do not learn for they have not challenged themselves. Hence, by suggesting that Trump was unqualified to serve as president because of his past failures, he was also saying that any of us who have failed at anything are not qualified to reach for high heights and that our opinions don't count for squat. So Mr. Steyer got on my bad side based on that alone. But there is more. For those of you familiar with The Matrix series knows that the Matrix legend is that in order to defeat the machines, humanity decided to black out the sky so that solar radiation would not be available for the machines. Of course this backfired spectacularly as the machines figured out that there were energy sources walking about and reproducing all around them. Hence the lesson about unintended consequences of not completely thought out plans. Back in the day when climate scaremongers were afraid of global *cooling*, they hatched a plan to melt arctic ice. I kid you not. Fortunately this utterly insane plan was not put into effect. But today I'm not so sure that such crazy plans would not be actually implemented. We have some crazy politicians, mostly on the Democrat side of the ledger who are wedded to the Climate Change religion. Tom Steyer is one of them and one of his advertisements clearly says that he will "end climate change".
Thursday, December 19, 2019
No, I'm not going to write about the impeachment vote. What's important to me is that a current candidate for president failed to vote "yea" or "nay". This matters. If you want to hold the executive office, emphasis on "executive" as in "execute" you must be able to make yea or nay decisions. Even if Tulsi thought that the entire show was bad and she didn't want to lend support to either side, IF she was president facing a similarly "tasteless" decision, she would *have* to make a decision. This was the time to show the potential voters that she can and will make decisions (right or wrong) and stick with them. Also, if one is on a jury, particularly in a criminal case, and you have reasonable doubts about the case being made about the defendant, you are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. That's a "nay" vote. Impeachment is a political process that is based on alleged criminal conduct. If a jurist has a reasonable doubt about the underlying alleged criminal conduct there is only one option. Hence Tulsi, like Kamala, Booker and others failed important tests for holding government power: Failing to uphold the innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Booker and Harris showed their non-qualifications during the Kavanaugh Show, once again, assuming the guilt of the accused and stating that the accused needed to "prove his innocence" though nothing under US jurisprudence requires any such thing. If they could not hold to the rules that govern the government while Senators (or Congresspersons) then they cannot be trusted with the power of the executive.
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Apparently, a county (or counties) in VA have decided to call up a militia (as provided for in the second amendment along with the VA constitution) in response to the pending "gun control" legislation. Well that elevated quickly. Yesterday when I posted on the matter I briefly mentioned the questions facing those who may be charged with enforcing the legislation. Having slept on the matter and with the recent news I feel a need to ask these citizens and militia members a few questions. Are you really ready to fire shots at state troopers? National guard? FBI, ATF? Serious question. I'm not questioning the passion of those involved, I just wonder if they really....really understand what they are signing up for. Back in my wee youth when I was "ready for revolution" I did some things that would be considered felonies had they come to juries. Nobody was or was going to be harmed but that's all I'm going to say about that. Later at an institution of higher learning the students there wanted to hold a sit-in /take over. I took the leadership aside and let them know the potential legal situation that these leaders were putting both themselves and the students following them in. Color me surprised when the "leadership" made sure to not put themselves in such legal jeopardy while allowing the students they roused to action to take the legal risks. Fortunately, these were small scale and nobody had to face legal repercussions but the lesson stuck with me: If you're not really prepared for the "end game" you may not want to get involved. The end game in VA may very well be taking shots at federal agents. Are these militia members prepared to do that? Are these militia members ready and willing to go to prison for this? Are they prepared to go on juries and nullify any attempts at convictions. This is serious. Since the legislators know that they cannot rely on local law enforcement to carry out the orders, they will have to go with people originating outside these locations. Hence, there will be no familial or community ties or sympathy to play on. So unless those who would be ordered to put down these county rebellions are incredibly sympathetic and are willing to put their own careers, possible freedom and family support at risk, these militia members could be facing very well supplied and determined feds. You'll note I haven't mentioned things like cutting off services because I think that these rural Virginians are far more prepared than city dwellers to go without "conveniences". The VA state legislature is counting on a few things here: 1) The conservatives are and remain "law-abiding". Since conservatives place a high value on law and order and obeying the law, they are less likely to defy the law even if they disagree with it (hence the "lost my gun in a boating accident"). This issue may be the event that breaks this particular trait. 2) That the threat of or use of overwhelming force, a-la Waco, will get the counties in line when the rubber hits the road. I think the odds are in the state's favour in this regard. There are ways out that don't involve bloodshed. First, I hope that AG Barr is paying attention and has DOJ lawyers ready to immediately challenge the law(s) as soon as they are to take effect. This administration has been very lax in this department. Maybe this was Jeff's fault but I remain skeptical. Such legal action would give breathing room for all parties involved. Secondly, the legislators involved do not pass the law. As pointed out by other writers on the matter, there are people who got into the state legislature on this issue alone. It would be difficult for them to vote against the very thing that got them into office. However; if they see the larger picture that is being painted here I would hope they would understand that supporting such legislation will likely have very negative outcomes that far outweigh what they believe they are gaining. But like the stock market there remains a large short term focus by many politicians. 2020 is going to be interesting. Is that thing they're poking a bear or a ferret?
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
That's a lot in the title eh? Since Trump has been elected a number of cities and states have declared themselves to be sanctuaries for illegal aliens. This has been met with approval from Democrats and other assorted leftists who cheered when the Obama administration put the smackdown on Arizona. The Obama administration claimed that it was the Federal government's purvue to enforce immigration law, not the States. Now states are making up their own immigration laws in direct contradiction to what they cheered for when Obama was in office. Not only that but these sanctuary cities and states are in direct violation of federal immigration law which makes it a felony to aide in the harboring an illegal alien as well as enticing them to come and stay. This is why I had been hard on Jeff Sessions who talked a good game but spent his time as AG, talking about enforcing civil forfeiture rather than arresting and prosecuting those who were openly in violation of federal law. NY State now hands drivers licenses to illegal aliens. To show how Orwellian it's gotten, a local news reporter said that NYS now gives driver's licenses to "immigrants". NYS has always given driver's licenses to immigrants. NYS, up to now, honored the law and did not give licenses (otherwise known as "enticements") to illegal aliens. NYS is of course not alone in this blatant lawbreaking. 13 other states do the same thing on the grounds of "public safety". So we have open defiance of federal law by various states that go unpunished. In stark contrast we have Virginia in the midst of an apparent Michael Bloomberg financed attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens. I don't know all the details of the proposed "gun control" law(s) that are supposedly going to be put on the books in 2020, but from the reactions of various law enforcement agents in various counties that those proposed laws are apparently VERY infringing. To counter this a large number (majority?) of counties have declared themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuaries. In response to this, the same people who are OK with cities and states declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegal aliens (in defiance of federal law), are threatening these counties with responses up to and including deployment of the national guard. Could this turn into a hot civil war? We are already in a cold-ish civil war with Antifa assaulting people in public with support of state agents. We have companies that fire citizens for having the wrong opinions. We have state agencies passing unconstitutional laws declaring how people should refer to other people. I honestly believe that there will be a tipping point to where it gets to two-way violence. A lot of people in the US know very little about the US Civil War beyond that slavery was involved. They don't understand why all those confederate statues exist. They do not understand that the US Civil War was very much about the imposition of northern states on southern states. People, generally speaking, do not care for outsiders imposing their will on them. This is not to defend slavery, it's about understanding human nature. Once the US Civil War was over, the country had to get along and could not treat each other as enemies. Today we are fast approaching similar levels of animosity that preceeded the US Civil War. It's arguable that Mike Bloomberg imposed himself on Virginia (a place he does not reside or work in) by funding the campaigns of people who would otherwise not have been able to run a campaign, much less win an election. Furthermore; the places where these Bloomberg candidates won were those near DC, which has very different demographics than the rest of the state (I drive through that state often, and yes, there is a HUGE difference between north-east VA and the rest of the state). So if these laws come to pass and there is resistance to their implementation how far will this go? If the various county leaders don't fold (and I think they are more likey TO fold than not to) is the state willing to WACO an entire county? Will a future Democratic president be willing to WACO these counties? Serious question. This scenario is not outside the real of possibility. What would the national reaction be if a WACO type situation arises? Will members of the military be willing to kill to infringe the rights of citizens to bear arms? Police have already done so in places like Maryland. I see a lot of "I lost my guns in a boating accident" type commentary on the web. Well, these red flag laws will allow the state to search your premises for these drowned guns. They don't need a registry, just a "somebody" claiming that they think a citizen is a threat. This issue is going to be interesting to watch. I really think that the Feds need to come down extremely hard on these cities and states declaring themselves "sanctuaries" in violation of law. I would include RICO charges for those legislators who proposed and voted for these laws. They knew they were in violation and did not care. Arrest, prosecute and disrobe all the judges who allow illegal aliens to avoid the authorities as well. Matter of fact, allow citizens to sue any and all authorities involved if their family members have been harmed or killed by any illegal alien given sanctuary.
And here's what the IG said. Sir. Were you lying then or are you lying now? And let me direct a point to the black readers. The entire reason the FISA court exists is due to the shady stuff that Hoover did to MLK. So understand that the people that come at you, hat in hand talking about donate to their campaign because they support Civil Rights and they marched with so and so and whatnot, ALL backed this nonsense. And they continue to back this nonsense. This entire process shows that they don't give 2 cents about Civil Rights or anything like that. Its power. Plain power. And you keep giving it to them.
Periodically I see reports about the low enrollment of black students in NYC's specialized high schools. The charge is always racism and white supremacy despite the following:
Currently, 60 percent of specialized high-school students are Asian, 24 percent white, and 10 percent Hispanic and black.It's absolutely amazing how this "White Supremacy" provides the highest benefits to those classified as non-white.
The lack of black and Hispanic students has become “so bad and so unacceptable,” Liu said.Unacceptable to who? Whom? Why would I find it unacceptable that students who do not pass the test do not get to attend the school? That's like finding it unacceptable for losers of the game to not be given the award for winning.
“I don’t think the SHSAT is going to be eliminated,” Liu told the crowd of roughly 100 parents, referring to the Specialized High School Admissions Test, which is currently the sole admissions determinant for the city’s top public high schools.So if blacks want in on the schools at higher numbers all they have to do is pass...the...test.
Critics of the current admissions system cast the single test as an inadequately narrow marker of student talent that benefits families with the resources to prepare for it.If you're homeless, then you don't have the resources. If you are, say, on welfare and scraping by, then you don't have the resources. However; if you have a car note for a European or high-end Japanese vehicle, you have the resources. If you have a closet full of shoes, you have the resources. If you have a closet full of clothes, 90% of which you don't wear, you have the resources. If you get your hair done on the weekly, you have the resources. It's about priorities and intelligence. Period. Now one of the other reasons for low black enrollment is that bright black students get "scholarshipped" into private schools looking to increase their "diversity". There are only so many high performing black students to go around. Of course, while these schools are 60% Asian, the focus remains on white people who are the sun, moon and stars to the vast majority of black people:
One attendee ripped racial segregation in her area, District 2 in Manhattan, and urged white parents to be more active in ensuring racially mixed classrooms. “Trump is a product of New York City,” she said of the Republican president.Firstly, as said before the schools are 60% Asian. It would seem to me that the people in need of "urging" are Asian parents. Logical no? Secondly, what does Trump have to do with the schools? He graduated a long time ago (before me even) when the demographics of the NYC school system was far different than it is today.
“Black and brown people are just tired of fighting for something white people don’t want,” she said. “If you are in this room, and you are white person, I need you — a lot of people need you — to start stepping up and being vocal about the fact that you actually want to send your child to school with black and brown children.”Speak for yourself. I'm more concerned with the qualifications of the person at the head of the classroom than the racial composition of the student sitting one seat over. besides, why are you fighting with "white people" when it's Asians who are dominating these schools. Why don't you ask them why THEY don't want THEIR kids in the same school as blacks?
The speaker did not mention Asians or their place in the city’s school integration controversy.Shocked.
Monday, December 16, 2019
I don't know the religious affiliation of those running Crown Media which owns the Hallmark channel so I cannot say that they are yet another Christian company that failed the Job Test But I do know that a lot of Christians pay to get the Hallmark channel that was promoted as "family friendly". These persons expected that in exchange for their money, the channel would not push [much] of the modern day anti-Christian themes easily found elsewhere. I believe that a large portion of the Hallmark Channel's consists of such customers. Of course that Hallmark, known primarily for greeting cards has a larger business to think of. Hence the background for Crown Media's problem: Do they risk Hallmark's greeting cards business in affluent coastal regions where the LGBTQ is strong or tread lightly for their Christian customers. These days that's not even a hard question as Crown Media quickly caved to LGBTQ Enforcers Inc. But I saw that Crown Media AND Zola are cowards. Here's why. If you are the kind of person who pays attention you'll notice that LGBTQ Enforcers Inc. target white Christians. They don't target anyone else. So here's my challenge to Crown Media and Zola. Come next Ramadan, you produce and air a commercial featuring two (or more since Islam allows for multiple wives) Hijab wearing (but unveiled so there's no question) women getting married in a Mosque by an Imam holding a clearly visible Quran. Also produce and air a commercial featuring two (or more since Islam allows for multiple "wives") Muslim in "typical" Arab/Muslim garb (head dress, flowing robes) in a mosque with an Imam presiding holding a clearly visible Quran. Go ahead and produce and air these advertisements not only on US cable and broadcast television, but also on the internet. In fact, I dare any of these companies who are pushing the LGBTQ stuff to do so with Muslim appearing actors and actresses. I challenge the advertising execs at any of these companies to challenge any advertisement presented to them in which a Christian is depicted in a means clearly contradictory to Christian teachings and have them substitute Muslims. As a matter of fact, they should, next Ramadan, Which is Thursday, April 23, 2020, They should have a commercial with a guy dressed as Mohammed and a rather young looking girl as Aisha his child-wife. Everyone involved would not only shit their pants but they would be nervous during the shoots and would probably seriously entertain the thought of hiring armed security personnel. Why? We all know why. Christians, at present are not even paper tigers. Nobody, and I mean NO-BODY fears crossing a Christian. Muslims, however, have made it perfectly clear what they will do if you insult the religion and the prophet. It doesn't matter if it's "not all Muslims". Enough of them are willing (and able) to strike back. Furthermore; they get the special "racist" cover not given to white Christians because white liberals seem to think that slavery, colonialism and imperialism began and ends with white people. So yeah Crown Media and Zola are cowards, just not the way the media would have you believe.
Friday, December 13, 2019
Issues and Insights has a great piece on the current impeachment nonsense.
The accusation against Nixon, in Article 1, was that he “committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee … for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.”As I've mentioned to people before. Nixon committed actual crimes. There was absolutely no doubt about that by anyone. Now the interesting part with particular relevance given the recent IG report:
On top of that, “He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office,” and “authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the president, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency.”>Sound familiar, doesn't it? And Clinton:
Democrats at the time reveled in claiming the Clinton impeachment was all about sex. It was actually about repeatedly committing perjury to prevent the public from knowing about his philandering, especially with a young White House intern. Article 1 said, “William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning … the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee,” plus other false statements and “his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence” in the course of legal actions against him.Again, Clinton actually committed a crime. Trump's phone call, exercise of executive privilege and seeking court resolutions of what he believed to be unlawful subpoenas are not crimes.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Homepage of the NY Times as of 8:50AM today:
For almost two decades, the intelligence bureau of the New York Police Department has built a security apparatus designed to track international terror groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Now, the department is aiming those resources at a different target: far-right and extremist hate groups. Police officials say they have formed a new unit within the department’s intelligence bureau, known as “Racially and Ethnically Motivated Extremism,” or “R.E.M.E,” that will be primarily dedicated to investigating terror threats from far-right and neo-Nazi organizations, including groups like the Atomwaffen Division and The Proud Boys. The unit became operational early this month, and already has dozens of open investigations, police officials said.Ok....
According to the Anti-Defamation League, which tracks such incidents, 50 people were killed by extremists in the United States in 2018, and every one of the incidents was linked to far-right ideologies.Really?
“Who do they see as being the threat to the society they want to create — this white ethnostate?” Ms. Sizemoer said. “A city like New York City, where you have all of these races and ethnicities and religions all in one place. That’s the threat.”Really? If white "far right" groups are such a danger to Jews (and presumably others) in and around NY then why did the NY Times post the following in 2018:
If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York, it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy. During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, told me.Sir, are you lying now or were you lying then? Oh and that ADL claim? Long debunked in the Times Of Israel *ahem*:
The terminology of “extremist-related murders” creates a false impression that the report is exclusively devoted to racially or politically motivated murders. This is not true. It’s important to note that this is not a report about hate crimes, although hate crimes are included. This is a report about “extremist-related murders.” What’s that? According to the report, an extremist related murder is a murder where “there must be positive evidence connecting the murderer to an extremist group or movement. However, the murderers themselves do not need to be necessarily related to racist or ideological motives to be included in the report. The report includes murders committed for ideological and non-ideological reasons. In fact, the report states that of the 50 murders, only 19 were considered ideologically or racially motivated. The rest of the murders were non-ideological or the motives were unclear. Wrong. Murders by so-called “far right extremists” represent a tiny fraction of total murders in the US. It is not a “major threat.” We do not even know how many “non-far right” extremist murders took place because, according to the ADL, the data is difficult to obtain. [My underlines]Oh. Sir, are you lying now or were you lying then? This is why I no longer consider the NY Times, Time magazine and a host of other mainstream media to be authoritative information sources. They don't even bother to look at what they themselves printed a year ago. I'm not surprised that NY has this stupid task force. Look at the Mayor. I'm sure anyone who knows the real deal either didn't speak up, been "reassigned" or voluntarily early retired.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
So while I've been not posting I've been watching, reading and training. Part of my watching has been a few fellows who have done time. I figured this particular episode was worth posting because I see so many people complaining about oppression and how this is hard and that is hard and all that. No, not it's not and no you're not oppressed.
Comey back in 2016:
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information... There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)... None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.There was a guy in Connecticut who put his Model 3 on "auto-pilot". He then proceeded to "check on his dog" in the back seat. During this maneuver the car ran into a police vehicle that was assisting a broken down motorist in one of the center lanes. He's being charged with reckless driving. Do you think he can use the "well I was extremely careless and didn't "intend" to crash into the police car so you should drop these charges" defense? I seriously doubt that. Yet here's Comey making that exact argument. Which brings us to the IG report. Although it's important to note that the IG has no prosecutorial powers, his report does the same thing as Comey
Conclusions Concerning All Four FISA Applications We concluded that the failures descr ibed above and in this repo rt represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and dep rived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. Although some of t he factual misstatements and omissions we fou nd in t his review were arguably more significant tha n others, we believe t hat all of them taken together resulted in FISA applica t ions that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case. We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many add it ional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete infor mation to OI and failing to flag im portant issues for discussion . While we did not f ind documentary or testimonial evidence of intent ional m isconduct on the part of the case agents who assist ed OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified. I n most instances, t he agent s and supervisors told us t hat they either did not know or recall why the information was not shared with OI, that the fa ilure to do so may have been an oversight, t hat they did not recognize at t he time the releva nce of t he information to t he FI SA applica tion, or t hat t hey did not believe th e missing information to be significant . On this last point, we believe that case agents may have improperly substituted their own j udgments in place of the j udgment of OI, or in place of the court, to weigh t_he probative va lue of t he information.Substituted their own judgement for the court? What pray tell, was the judgement involved? Maybe "Orange Man Bad"?
Further, the failu re to update OI on all significant case dev elopments relevant to t he FISA applications led us to conclude that t he agents and supervisors did not g ive appropriate at tention or t reatm ent to t he facts t hat cut aga inst probable cause, or reassess t he infor mation supporting probable cause as the investigation progressed. T he agents and SSAs also did not fo llow, or appear to even know, t he requirements in t he Woods Proced ures to reverify the factual assertions from previous applicationsAgents didn't "know" the rules that govern their investigations? Sure. OK.
None of the inaccuracies and omissions that we identified in t he renewal application s were brought to the attention of OI before the applica tions were filed . As a resu lt, similar to t he fi rst application, the Department officials who reviewed one or more of the renewa l applicati ons, including Yates, Boente, and Rosenstein, did not have accurate and complete information at t he t ime t hey app roved them . We do not speculate whether or how having accurate and complete information might have influenced the decisions of senior Departm ent leaders who supported th e four FISA applications, or t he court, if they had known all of t he relevant information.Well I'll speculate: If you give me more and accurate information I'll make a better decision than if I have wrong information. The only way I make a bad decision after getting "better" or "more accurate" information is if I have already decided on the action and facts be damned.
We did not identify a specific Department policy prohibiting Ohr from meeting with Steele, Simpson, or the State Department and providing the information he learned from those meetings to the FBI. However, Ohr was clearly cognizant of his responsibility to inform his supervisors of these interactions, and acknowledged to the OIG that the possibility that he would have been told by his supervisors to stop having such contact may have factored into his decision not to tell them about it. We concluded that Ohr committed consequential errors in judgment by ( 1) failing to advise his direct supervisors or the DAG that he was communicating with Steele and Simpson and then requesting meetings with the FBI's Deputy Director and Crossfire Hurricane team on matters that were outside of his areas of responsibility, and (2) making _h imself a witness in the investigation by meeting with Steele and providing Steele's information to the FBI. As we describe in Chapter Eight, the late discovery of Ohr's meetings with the FBI prompted NSD to notify the FISC in July 2018, over a year after the final FISA re newal order was issued, of information that Ohr had provided to the FBI but that the FBI had failed to inform NSD and 01 about (and therefore was not included in the FISA applications), including that Steele was "desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. President."Oh I see. Ohr doesn't tell his supervisors about meetings he's having because they would have told him to stop even though there's no policy saying he can't have these meetings. Really? Oh and if I don't tell then the supervisors have plausible deniability of knowing of Ohr's activities. Nothing to see here. Move along.
FBI Compliance with Policies · In addition, for reasons we explain in Chapter Eleven, we concluded that the federal ethics rules did not require Ohr to obtain Department ethics counsel approval before engaging with the FBI in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane matter because of Nellie Ohr's prior work for Fusion GPS. However, we found that, given the factual circumstances that existed, and the appearance that they created, Ohr displayed a lapse in judgment by not availing himself of the process described in the ethics rules to consult with the Department ethics official about his involvement in the investigation .Again, there's no rule prohibiting this but we have "lapses of judgment". So many "lapses in judgement"
We did not find any documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to conduct these operations. Additionally, we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign. However, we are concerned that, under applicable Department and FBI policy, it would have been sufficient for a first-level FBI supervisor to authorize the sensitive domestic CHS operations undertaken in Crossfire Hurricane, and that there is no applicable Department or FBI policy requiring the FBI to notify Department officials of a decision to task CHSs to consensually monitor conversations with members of a presidential campaign. Specifically, in Crossfire Hurricane, where one of the CHS operations involved consensually monitoring a high-level official on the Trump campaign who was not a subject of the investigation, and all of the operations had the potential to gather sensitive information of the campaign about protected First Amendment activity, we found no evidence that the FBI consulted with any Department officials before conducting the CHS operations-and no policy requiring the FBI to do so. We therefore believe that current Department and FBI policies are not sufficient to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability when such operations potentially implicate sensitive, constitutionally protected activity, and that requiring Department consultation, at a minimum, would be appropriate.See how the "bad" activity is hidden behind "no specific FBI policy" and other jargon. Agents and supervisors "should have known" and "should have done" whatever, but since there was no "policy" then there is no bias. That numerous people did "non-rule breaking" things that were "lapses of government" all directed at unseating Trump is just a co-inky-dink. just like it was a co-inky-dink that Clinton's e-mails were deleted by her lawyers and technicians and weren't turned over to the FBI for analysis and she didn't break any particular rule on purpose. It was just a "lapse of judgment". Anyway, that document is 400+ pages and contains a lot more "lapses in judgment" than I've quoted here.
Monday, December 02, 2019
Since I have some time off I can post on this piece I read some time ago entitled "We failed to reach Europe – now our families disown us"
Fatmata breaks into sobs when she remembers the six months she spent in slavery as the "wife" of a Tuareg nomad who seized her in the Sahara desert. "They call him Ahmed. He was so huge and so wicked," she says. "He said, 'You are a slave, you are black. You people are from hell.' He told me when somebody has a slave, you can do whatever you want to do. Not only him. Sometimes he would tell his friend, 'You can have a taste of anything inside my house.' They tortured me every day."Remember: There was Muslim slavery in Africa prior to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and there is Muslim slavery now.
When she got back, she called her brother. But his reaction terrified her. "He told me, 'You should not even have come home. You should just die where you went, because you didn't bring anything back home.'"This sentiment is not uncommon.
She stole 25 million leones - about US $2,600 at today's exchange rate, but then worth a lot more - from her aunt. It was money her aunt had given her to buy clothes, that could then be resold as part of her trading business. Her aunt regularly trusted her in that way. "I was only thinking how to get the money and go," Fatmata says, though she adds that she's not a selfish person. "If I had succeeded in going to Europe, I decided that I would triple the money, I would take good care of my aunt and my mum." But Fatmata's aunt's business never recovered from the loss of the money. And - to make things even worse - the theft has caused a rift between the aunt and her sister, Fatmata's mother, whom she falsely accuses of being in on Fatmata's plan.This is also not uncommon. This has to be the third report I've read this year about how people are leaving stable places where they have small businesses and give smugglers relatively large sums of money to get into Europe to live on the streets in the cold in the hopes of "making it big". That's not all though. It's not just money theft from families.
Jamilatu, aged 21, who escaped with Fatmata from the traffickers' prison in Algeria, took a plastic bag of cash worth $3,500 from her mother's room when she was out of the house. The money didn't even belong to her mother. It had all been lent to her by neighbours, as part of a microcredit scheme.Microcredit. I used to regularly give micro-loans. A good 20% went unpaid. Then I realized that some was being used to get to Europe. Not what I intended. And even when you try to help the returnees:
As for Fatmata and Jamilatu, they never received an allowance because they returned from Mali at a time when some other Sierra Leoneans were abusing the system by catching a bus to Mali, pretending they'd returned from across the Sahara, and claiming the allowance. So everyone returning from Mali lost out, including Fatmata and Jamilatu.These migrations are a huge human capital drain on the "sending" countries whether they be in Africa or Central America. Entire villages are depopulated (often of the men) and economic activity halted as money is diverted to smugglers. But hey..diversity.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
So this is a kinda sorta response to the whole Chik-Fil-A issue. I've written a number of times about the diversity racket has weaponized the state to grossly infringe on the first, thirteenth and fourteenth Amendment rights and guarantees of Christian persons and businesses. These folks don't bother orthodox Jews. They don't bother observant Muslims. They are after one group. I'm not in that group but I recognize the threat these infringements pose to everyone. Don't think that the rat in your neighbors yard won't find its way into your yard. So let me remind my Christian friends about two relevant stories in your book that is relevant to what's going down.
Matthew 4:1-11 King James Version (KJV) 4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.The above is the temptation of Christ. Important thing here is that he was promised everything in the world but said "no". Now one could say that since Jesus being the son of God knew that in the end he'd own everything anyway, there was no real temptation. Fine.
Job 1 King James Version (KJV): 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 12 And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.Then a whole lot of bad stuff happened to Job, after which:
20 Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped, 21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. 22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.Then more bad stuff ensued:
7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. 8 And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes. 9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. 10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.In the end:
Job 42 King James Version (KJV) 12 So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. 13 He had also seven sons and three daughters. 16 After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations. 17 So Job died, being old and full of days.Job, not being the "son of God" had little rational reason to not give up. Yet he stood by his faith. And that's the point here. These folks who are going after businesses and the like, do not like you, will not like you and wish you ill. They are a test of faith. They seek to break you and make it seem "reasonable" to compromise here and compromise there. It's only a little thing. Just say that so and so is OK. Just say such and such is fine. Just bake the cake. Just stop supporting... I know a lot of people who like to claim that the only thing they fear is God. Right up to the point where that paycheck is threatened.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
So over the past couple of days I've noticed that the following talking point has been floating around in regards to impeachment: Bribery. I assume this is going to be the hat, or one of them, that Dems will try to put on Trump. I suppose that they finally understood that impeachment actually requires the commission of a crime. So let's look at this. Bribery, as it deals with Trump acting as president is defined as:
a person commits the crime of bribery by giving or offering a public official or public employee something of value in return for some official action (or in exchange for the public official not doing something he or she is legally obligated to do), benefitting the defendant.Since the president was talking to the president of Ukraine, then the charge would be that Trump was offering "something of value" to the president of Ukraine to do certain investigations. For the moment lets assume that Trump's conversation did in fact include a bribe. That is, Ukraine's president was not disposed to investigate Burisma or Crowdstrike but since Trump was offering US money, he decided to do so. IF that is bribery then how do we deal with Joe Biden? Again. We already have Joe Biden on public record The money shot:
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...Now we have seen the Trump transcript. There is nothing in the transcript as blatant as what Joe Biden said. Nothing. The so called "witnesses" have either given 2nd and 3rd hand info or have made statements to the effect of "well it was strongly hinted at, or strongly implied". But above we have a clear. Do this or don't get the billion. So if we are going to convict people of bribery, which I'm all for, then Joe Biden is first in line. I will side with my fellow citizens who hate Trump, to try Trump, in a fair trial for bribery ONLY if they apply the same law to the Biden and Obama. Because if what Biden did (again, you can listen for yourself) is NOT bribery then there is no way to convict Trump of bribery in any fair trial. And why did I mention Obama? Well Biden made the claim that Obama knew full well that Biden was going to ask for the investigation into Burisma to be dropped ("Go ahead, call him"). So that makes Obama a co-conspirator in the bribery of Ukrainian officials. That's what we call "equal protection" and "equal liability" under the law. My position is this: International monetary aide has always come with strings and "asks". It's the nature of the beast. It's not always pretty. This line of attack (coup) is as shortsighted as it is stupid. Trump's lawyers will easily slap down this charge, particularly when that IG report comes out (provided it comes out prior to the senate portion of the show). So called news organizations are doing the public a disservice by not asking these talking heads why Biden hasn't also been charged. That very fact should leave you very suspicous of the events going on in DC.
Thursday, November 07, 2019
The news I read this morning troubled me deeply. It should have troubled every citizen regardless of party affiliation, candidate preferences or the like. A lawyer for a "whistleblower" openly calling for a coup and actually trying to get it done crosses a line that every citizen should recognize. Let me explain how this republic works, electorally, for those sympathetic to "resistance": The election for president is indirect. The US has never had a popular vote for president. Most times the popular vote and the electoral vote align. However; every so often the math works out that one can lose the popular vote and win the electoral college vote. The latter is what matters under the US Constitution. Everyone since the founding has understood this. This is how it's done here. What is done elsewhere doesn't matter. That's how it's done here and for better and worse it has worked out to the extent that the US has become a very prosperous place with an extremely high level of personal freedom for its citizens. In a stable government the losers of elections, no matter how bitterly fought, conceded defeat, congratulated the victor and went off stage left...and shut the fuck up. In stable governments, it has long been understood that one did not use your defeat to "resist" the duly elected official. You may make plans to run again, but those plans did not include fomenting a coup. The supporters of the losing candidate also understood that they lost this time with this candidate but there will be another election in x amount of time and if they so chose they could try again. They did not plot a coup of the winning candidate. Trump's election was not the first time that squeaker elections have happened:Law and Crime website asked Zaid about his tweets:
Law&Crime also asked Zaid to clarify what he meant by the “we will get rid of him” tweet. “I referred to any lawful methods that exist, whether impeachment, if justified, or voting him out. My views are in sync with the majority of the country,” he said. “In fact, there are tweets I made that speak out against impeachment.”So why hasn't this fellow been charged with anything? You can thank the 1st Amendment for that. Both sedition and treason require the use of or planned use of force. This requirement weighs heavily against Antifa and their street nonsense but for Zaid, it's his only cover. For me, any candidate for elected office who cannot forthrightly reject persons who call for "coups", is not fit for office. As far as I'm concerned, each and every Dem candidate for office should be front and center to condemn this Zaid fellow. And even though the law requires force, as far as I'm concerned: It's treason.
Monday, November 04, 2019
Hello folks. Long time no post. I know. I don't get paid to do these posts so when time isn't available I don't post. Since I'm not going for cheap clicks by making inane commentary on the most recent event, I post only when I have had a chance to digest an issue, research it, if necessary and then post on it. I'd comment on the impeachment fiasco but until there is an actual trial in the Senate there's not much to say. There has been no crime alleged. Impeachment requires a crime (misdemeanor or high crime, which I assume to mean felony). None has been alleged. "Improper" is not a crime. "Uncomfortable" is not a crime. The people who have come forward thus far have made claims that reverse the order of things. Intelligence agencies report to the president, who sets national priorities, not the other way around. So Trump doing something that an unelected agent is "uncomfortable with" is not a crime. So keep that in mind when watching or reading anything in regards to impeachment. Recall (if old enough) that Clinton was impeached because he lied to investigators in regards to Monica. The lie got him impeached because the lie was a crime. Nixon was similarly under investigation because an actual crime was committed that implicated him. Neither of these applies to Trump. I do believe that the Democrats are attempting to get a "process crime", a-la Flynn. Whether Trump falls into that trap remains to be seen. Anyway, onto the subject at hand. So over the weekend, I was reading about yet another case where a state was trying to get a Christian creative professional to do some work for a homosexual organization and/or event. It's pretty clear that these organizations and the state are purposely targetting Christian businesses and the Fed needs to step in. The states where these clear violations of the 1st amendment are taking place are using so-called "anti-discrimination" laws in order to run around the 1st. Such that even if you don't blanket deny services to a homosexual, the simple fact that you decline to do a particular service for a homosexual or on behalf of homosexuals, you have thereby violated the right of the homosexual to have you do work for them or on their behalf. Thus far the arguments I have seen have rested on the 1st Amendment prohibition against that state abridging free speech and against the state compelling speech. The second argument has been the 14th Amendment of states required to make sure all laws are equally applied (equal protection) to all citizens. The 1964 Civil Rights act circumvents the 14th Amendment because it designates and allows "protected classes" of citizens Who can get the state to sue on their behalf any organization or citizen whom they think has violated their civil rights. What I haven't seen raised, and perhaps I missed it, is a direct argument against involuntary servitude. It's been alluded to in terms of "compelled speech" which is another way of saying "involuntary speech", but I have not seen a direct argument that no customer of a business can demand that the owner of that business perform labour which he or she does not want to perform. So for example, I had a car that I thought had a bad drive shaft. The car was 20 years old at the time and I took it to a specialist. We took it for a test drive so he could hear the sounds I thought were indicative of the problem. After the drive he said to me that he declined to do the work. I was annoyed but it was his business and his labour (or those of his mechanics whom he is obliged to pay) and I couldn't force him to work on my car even though that was what his business was and even if the job would not fix the problem, it was my money to waste if I so chose. The 13th Amendment states:
SECTION 1 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. SECTION 2 Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.You'll note that the 13th not only abolishes slavery but it also abolishes involuntary servitude. That is in recognition that one can be forced to do labour while not being the property/Chattel (slave) of a person (or legal entity). So the question here is, if a shop owner declines to "bake that cake" for the homosexual wedding, isn't the customer who demands that he does it, attempting to extract involuntary servitude? And, when the state steps in with its monopoly on legal deadly force on the side of the "customer" to force the baker to "bake that cake", isn't the state attempting to enforce involuntary servitude on the baker? Can the state pass legislation that effectively stipulates involuntary servitude as a condition of being able to operate a public business? And no, just because one is being paid doesn't make it any less involuntary. If the customer pulled a gun and put it to the baker's head to demand the cake (yes a total exaggeration, but take the walk with me), and after the cake is made, pays the baker would we consider that "voluntary"? Again, I'm not sure if lawyers for the various companies and organizations have looked into this but if not I think they should. I know there are large legal implications of this argument, particularly around civil rights legislation but that should not stop looking into this.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
You know. This weekend I was on a high cause we had black folks doing all kinds of big things. Kipchoge, broke the 2 hour marathon, even if it wasn't an official world record due to the set up. We had Simone Biles racking up medals at the world championships. We had Tyler Perry making his studio and naming his stages after black actors and actresses (instead of whining about other people's shit). And note, I'm not really a TP fan. But I respect his hustle. But then we gotta deal with the damn fools. Here's Steve Harvey, who I've had to correct before, pulling the slavery rabbit out the hat. Now I know his brand took a bad beat when he met with Trump back in January of 2017. I gave him credit for it then because I recognize that having a seat at the table is better than complaining about who's at the table. Sitting at the table isn't an endorsement. Sitting at the table means you get a chance to leverage power. But negroes are too busy hating the president to understand this. To be fair, this slavery is just around the corner BS is not unique to Steve. In fact the whole morning crew is dull as bricks on the subject. Matter of fact, every DJ on the station that carries him, in the area I live in, are no better. At this point I listen to it only to see what new dumb nonsense is going to pop out the DJ's mouth. Like the DJ who was going on about Columbus day and how it's indigenous people's day cause Columbus was a rapist and murderer and thief. Two seconds later talking about how she was going to cut "her" lawn. Umm. No, Native American people didn't do private land ownership so, since you're on this "indigenous day" thing, you should be consistent and not own property either. Matter of fact, there are a number of poor native people on reservations that YOU should trade places with. Right? 'Cause what righteous person keeps possession of stolen property? Matter of fact is that all nations are the result of conquest. And none of it was pretty. You think Ghana, Songhai and Mali were expanded peacefully? Sure. You believe that. You think the native Americans of both the north and south were gentle with all other tribes/nations? Sure. Believe that. Oh. Right. Only the white man doing it to non-whites is bad. Anyway. One of the reasons I'm even posting on this is because almost four years ago Tavis Smiley did the same "They want to bring back slavery" shtick:
But at the conclusion of my talk, I was introduced to another question that still haunts me. I had handled most of the closing Q&A questions. Then one student hit me with this: “Mr. Smiley, do you believe that given the crisis state of our democracy, we black folk could ever find ourselves enslaved again?” Whoa. Didn’t see that one coming. Neither did the mostly white audience. A quiet fell over the room. I swallowed hard. Looking directly at the student, I could see he was dead serious, and I wanted to treat his question with the soberness it deserved. But, truthfully, I stumbled as I began to respond, not knowing how to properly frame my response. My answer? Yes...Thus far it has been 998 days and Trump still hasn't proposed his "back to slavery" legislation. I'm also old enough to have heard this "back to slavery" nonsense for every Republican candidate for president as well as some other positions. It's tired. It's played. And I've had enough of it. You wanna know who the new slaves are? They are the illegal aliens that Democrats and Republicans have winked and nodded into the country. They are in fields (I've seen them). They are in poultry factories and other places where not only are they exploited but are also used to depress the wages of the citizen workforce, with particular devastation to the low/no skill [ex-slave] African-American population. They won't pay you, the citizen a fair wage needed to live in whatever city you live in, but will get [enter meso-American name here] to cross the border and live 5 to a fire hazard room or a van or a camper, or even under highway overpasses, for dirt cheap. Same company will then lecture you about their values. All someone has to do with these Negroes is say Trump and they'll be blind to everything else.
Tuesday, October 08, 2019
Quid Pro Quo 101:
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...Foreign Collusion 101:
A brief note on this NBA-China thing. See not so long ago when the people of North Carolina, USA decided that they weren't having it with men in dresses with mental disorders going into women's bathrooms, the NBA among others, went to bat against the citizens:
In one of the biggest economic consequences to come out of North Carolina’s controversial law that bans transgender people from using bathrooms in accordance with their gender identities, the National Basketball Association has decided to pull the 2017 All-Star game out of Charlotte... “Today the NBA and Commissioner Silver sent a clear message that they won’t stand for discrimination against LGBTQ employees, players or fans,”said Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin in a statement. “The NBA repeatedly warned state lawmakers that their hateful HB2 law created an inhospitable environment for their 2017 All-Star Game and other events.So the NBA to Americans who aren't down with the tranny bullshit: Fuck off. NBA to the Chinese: Please, baby please, baby please! More specifically:
“These are complex issues they don’t lend themselves easily to social media,” Silver said. “I can’t ultimately run the NBA based on trying to satisfy everyone on Twitter.” He later added that: “we are not apologizing for Daryl exercising his freedom of expression.”So people objecting to be subject to the demands of the mentally disturbed: Not complicated. Supporting "democracy" in Hong Kong: Complicated. Right. Totally not unexpected. I said it when the whole Target boycott thing came around: Unless you have the power to make the parking lots empty on a major shopping holiday, these boycotts will mean nothing. Why have so many companies essentially come out an put the middle finger up to anyone who is not far left these days? Persons Per Square Foot. Lefties live, generally speaking in high population urban centers. Companies have figured out that they can make plenty of profits selling to these persons and do not need the support of people who live in the middle of "grassland" USA, who largely speaking don't have a choice as to where and with whom they will shop. Support Trump all you want but if the local Walmart decides to up and go, a LOT of red state America is foooked. So the NBA just let you know America. The Chinese are more important than you are. Don't forget to tune in.
Monday, September 30, 2019
The Left is currently in the grips of a mass delusion that males and females are "the same" and that one can "change sexes" and other such nonsense. Having taken control of many levers of power, they are attempting to brainwash children into this nonsense and punish right thinking adults who reject the tranny nonsense for what it is: nonsense. Not only do we have the tranny nonsense but we have a crop of athletes who think that male and female athletes are "equal". Even athletes who know better have been spouting that nonsense because they are afraid of the Alphabet Mafia (for good reason). However; this weekend in Doha we were treated to a grand scientific experiment that blew up this entire "equal" and "same" nonsense in front of the whole world. Behold the mixed 400 meter relay final:> Despite being given a lead of nearly 100 meters. Not only did the polish woman get utter CRUSHED by the leading American runner but she was passed by the slowest male in the field. Let that sink in. The fastest woman on the Polish team could not beat the slowest male who had the most distance to make up. This is HBD people. This is what we are talking about. I have no doubt that all those women could beat me in a 400 meter race. But I am not a top male athlete. In the earlier semi-final, Japan fielded three men and left the woman for their anchor leg. Their second male was made to wait for what appeared to be 10 seconds before he could do his leg and he STILL caught all of them. Japan's female athlete was CRUSHED by all the male athletes despite once again having a lead. This worldwide spectacle should be the be-all and end-all of the tranny nonsense, especially in sport. None of these males in female events. Period.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
So having failed to topple the current president with a Russia collusion charge, Democrats have decided that Joe Biden, clearly suffering from what I believe to be age-related dementia, needs to be offed in an attempt to try to sink Trump prior to the 2020 election. They call this "impeachment inquiry" but I seriously think it's a knife in Joe Biden's back. Not that I mind since he's a proven liar. But lets get to the meat here. Supposedly Trump made a call to the [newly elected] president of Ukraine. On that talk the subject of Joe Biden's son's [lack of] prosecution came up. Trump allegedly dangled the money appropriated by Congress for military aid in exchange for the president looking into how/why a former Ukrainian prosecutor was fired shortly after Joe Boden threatened to withhold loan guarantees if THAT prosecutor wasn't fired. Got it? To recap: The current US president, asked the current president of Ukraine to look into why the Ukrainian justice system caved to pressure from a foreign vice-head of state to not investigate possible crimes committed by the son of that foreign vice-head of state. This is an "impeachable offense" to Democrats. Ok. But this goes deeper. Watch this clip as seen on ABL's Youtube channel: Did you hear that? No? Go back to time 4:53 and watch it again. Did you catch it?
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...You see it now? Biden said that he told the Ukrainians to call Obama because Biden was confident that Obama had his back. This means that Obama had approved of Joe Biden using his status vice-head of state to tell the Ukrainians to fire a state prosecutor who was investigating his son, IF they wanted a billion dollars. In other words, Biden is saying here that He and Obama conspired and carried out obstruction of [Ukranian] justice by way of extortion. That's the real story here. One president, Trump asking the president of Ukraine to investigate why his justice system was corrupted by Biden and another president allowing his VP to extort/bribe a country in order to get his son out from under investigation. But Trump is the alleged criminal here. Yeah OK. This is going to backfire so badly on Democrats. I cannot overstate how bad this looks. So long as this stays in the media, more and more people are going to see the above video. They are going to get more and more info into what Hunter Biden was doing in Ukraine. They are going to connect this with the failed Russia colussion hoax and they will be entirely turned off. I'm talking about mainstream middle of the road citizens. The one's required to win high office. I simply cannot believe that the people running this clown show don't actually realize that they are going to kill Biden's run with this. They cannot be that stupid. The only explanation is that they realize Joe is on his way out and they are simply accelerating his fall to clear the way for more viable candidates. Imagine an impeachment proceeding in the Senate where Obama is asked under oath whether he approved of Joe's actions. If he says he did, then he admits to a criminal conspiracy to obstruct [Ukrainian] justice and he also admits to the same "crime" they are accusing Trump of. If he says No, then Joe is shown to be a rogue VP using his office for favours for his family. Again, the same thing Trump has been accused of since taking office. Either way it's BAD for JOE.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
When I was growing up there was a common thought in the culture I was raised in:
Children shall be seen but not heard.The general idea being that there were arenas for children and arenas for adults. Children, in the presence of adults deferred to them. A great deal. When in the presence of adults children were not to be heard from unless spoken to. Why? Because children, being irresponsible and not knowing a damn thing, generally had nothing of value to tell an adult unless they were *asked*. Children hence were socialized into knowing that they gained the ability to "hold court" as it were as they aged and gained wisdom. To go along with this was that during social occasions there were children's tables and adult tables. Similar to the above it was generally the case that children didn't engage in "grown folk talk". This is not to say that children were ignored by adults, but that the hierarchy of authority (and attendant responsibility) was enforced socially. Recently I saw a commercial in which a child was mad at her father because apparently, he had to move for his job. The child was mad an *slammed the door in her father's face*. Every time I see this commercial, I say to myself that only in my wildest dreams would I even THINK about slamming my room door in my mother's face. If I didn't lose a few teeth soon thereafter, I could find all my shit, excuse me, the shit purchased for my by my mother, out at the front door with a declaration that since I was so grown I could find somewhere to live where I can slam doors all day on whomever I wanted. Needless to say, such blatant displays of disrespect towards a parent, much less any other adult was simply not tolerated. How times have changed. Today we have a 16-year-old child, who up and decided she was no longer going to attend school, allowed to throw a temper tantrum at a UN meeting on climate change. I don't know of any situation where a 16-year-old, school dropout would be allowed to speak as an authority on *anything* other than "don't drop out of school". Yet here is this child being given extra-ordinary attention (and financing) by various media and "climate" organizations. It's clear that this child has never been put in a situation where an adult said "who TF do you think you're speaking to" prior to that adult administering "correction". Children as rude as Greta are generally speaking the result of non-parenting. While personality is hereditary, it's expression is subject to environmental pressure and an assertive adult is extreme pressure. But Greta is but one example of the newish push to use children as the pawns in the global power play by the Socialist-Communist-Climate mafioso that has it'stooges in all nations, at all levels of government. Why are they using children? Children are like animals that have been born and raised in captivity. They know no other reality than that which has been allowed by their captors. Animals that have been raised in the wild and who know the freedom (and responsibilities) that entails are far more dangerous because they *remember* what it was like. Children, particularly those in The West are like born captive children. They have never experienced the past as known by the adults and so everything they experience is "new" to them. Those in power understand that if they can capture the minds of children, all they have to do is wait out the dying off of adults. Of course, if the adults are not dying off (transferring power) fast enough, then what you do is restrict the ability of adults to be in control of their children. You restrict their ability to speak truth and to resist lies by imposing social and economic punishment for resisting the new paradigm. So in regards to climate, adults who remember that the last "scientific consensus" was that by now NYC would be under water. Or that the globe was going into an ice age and that scientists were in consensus that something had to be done about global cooling, are considered "climate deniers" (which is a not so subtle way of associating them with Holocaust Deniers) and anti-science. Other actual scientists who show how the data has been and is continuing to be manipulated are de-platformed, fired, censored and non-personed because this entire enterprise is NOT about science. Science isn't about consensus, it is about proof. Most people fall for this because generally, most people are scientifically illiterate. This isn't to knock them. Most of us are wildly illiterate on many subjects. This is why we must have science free from bias and politics. We may now know about a thing, but we can see when the person advocating a thing has a bias for or against it. We will judge them based on that bias. Today CBS news was talking about glaciers going away as if this is new. Now if you had no idea that glaciers have disappeared in arctic regions before, it's OK. You are a layperson. You're not expected to go the library and research newspapers from the 1950s, 1940s and further back. You are not expected to know that there have, in fact been times in artic where glaciers were melting so fast that the newspapers thought they were all going to go away, forever. You aren't expected to know that. But the people pushing Greta are. And they DO. Having said all this we have to deal with real climate change: First, the climate has always been changing on earth. Not only has the climate always been changing but even the geography has been changing. In fact GPS has to be adjusted to take into account plate movement So since we do not live on a static earth, anyone who speaks of climate change as if we are entitled to some static climate is not talking science. We are no more entitled to a static climate anymore than we are entitled to a sunny day. Climate change people talk about the areas that will be under water. Even if they are correct, Who entitled humanity to Forever Miami Beach? No one. When humans decided to build right on the Atlantic ocean it was a risk humans took. Same goes for all coastal cities. Only the shortsighted and scientifically illiterate thought that Forever Miami Beach was a thing. Same for the people living in areas that may become deserts. Who said they were entitled to Forever Savanah? No one. Humans, unlike many species have an extra-ordinary ability to adapt to and transform an environment for their living. This is something that will have to happen. You do know the Sahara was once lush and green right?
It’s important to note that the green Sahara always would’ve turned back into a desert even without humans doing anything—that’s just how Earth’s orbit works, says geologist Jessica Tierney, an associate professor of geoscience at the University of Arizona. Moreover, according to Tierney, we don’t necessarily need humans to explain the abruptness of the transition from green to desert. Read more:Now are there things that humans are doing that are a danger? Certainly. We can discuss them without scaring the shit out of children in order to implement ant-democratic policies worldwide. I personally believe deforestation and other de-greening of the planet is a [growing] problem. Plants convert CO2 into O2. We need O2 to live and our respiration released CO2 (and water vapour) it's a cycle, Animal respiration (along with combustion) consumes O2 and plant life releases O2. There has to be a point at which there are not enough plants to convert enough CO2 to O2 to allow O2 dependent life from continuing. I don't know where this point is, perhaps a reader out there knows. But it seems pretty clear to me that places like NYC are dependent on greener parts of the world in order for it's inhabitants to be alive. Perhaps scoffing at "fly over country" is not such a good idea. I'd be all for a plan to address the removal of plant life. For example, perhaps abandoned towns should be leveled and trees (or whatever native plant life) put back in it's place. I'm for mitigating the NOx polution from combustion since that is known to adversly affect respiration in animal life. So I'm for electric (or other feasable non-oil resplacements) energy for transport. But we should be looking at other disposables such as tires. Your tires wear out? Where do you think that rubber goes? into the air that you breath. I think we should invest in science that produces rubber (or whatever) that reduces the amount of rubber shedding from the normal use of tires. Electrification is not going to address that. So yes, you CAN be concerned about the environment (as you should) without resulting to brainwashing children and handing dicatorial power to those who want it for their own ends. And please someone put Greta back on her boat and back into a [real] classroom. And perhaps charge her parents with child abuse for giving her such a phobia.
Monday, September 16, 2019
The NYT, which recently outed itself for pushing the fake Russian Collusion story as a means to get Trump, did us a huge favour by finding time to dig up the accusations against Kavanaugh, so that we can be reminded again of the utter trash that the NYT currently is, as well as reminding us how far off the rails the Democrats have gone. Once again, the story that [a drunk] Kav exposed himself and perhaps had his penis put into the hands of some [drunk] chick while at a party was put on display for the public. The purpose being to retcon the past for "gotchya" moments to take out people whom Democrats don't like. There are a few things about this that I'd like to comment on. 1) Why is this even important? Unlike the claims against Justice Thomas, the claims against Kavanaugh have nothing to do with any of his work or jobs. Thomas was accused of behavior while he was a grown ass man and in a management position over his alleged victim. Clearly, had the allegations been provable and proven, he should not have been confirmed. Why? Because it would have reflected poorly against the employer (the government) to continue to employ someone who had a known history of victimizing those who he manages. That's important. But nothing of the sort applies to Kavanaugh. These folks attempted to go back to high school. High. Fucking. School. To try to show that some 50 odd year old man is unfit to be a supreme court justice. The fuck out of here. I admit, I was a real square. I'm still a square. But I know a lot of people that got into some *interesting* situations that they probably are not very proud of now and have moved on from and lead productive lives. There would be no purpose to revisit those activities except to try to smear their name for my own personal pleasure. I know people from when I was in college that got so drunk that they did things they probably don't want anyone bringing up now. Played "games" that they are glad most of the others have a hazy recall of. A lot of people at colleges do things due to peer pressure. They want to fit in. It's their first time away from adult supervision. Some naive, some acting naive. Some get in over their heads, live and learn. Some become victims of serious crimes. Some don't report. And that's their choice, but they get to live with that choice for the rest of their lives. Like the pastor says at the wedding. Speak now or forever hold your peace. I have little sympathy for people who sit on these kinds of allegations for 30+ years and then when the person they hate (for legitimate or non-legitimate reasons) is about to make big. Noooo. You were good when you thought they were average Joe Shmoe living the same [boring] average life you were. No, these smears and revisits to times past reveal their non-importance, particularly when there is *nothing* in the persons more recent past that shows the same behavior. 2) It may not have even been a crime. The alleged incident happened at Yale. In CT. Connecticut has rules against public indecency but says nothing about what happens in private (e-mail me if you find otherwise). The closest thing I could find was:
§ 764. Indecent exposure in the second degree; unclassified misdemeanor. (a) A male is guilty of indecent exposure in the second degree if he exposes his genitals or buttocks under circumstances in which he knows his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person. (b) A female is guilty of indecent exposure in the second degree if she exposes her genitals, breast or buttocks under circumstances in which she knows her conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person. Indecent exposure in the second degree is an unclassified misdemeanor.And that actually matches *DELAWARE*. So even if the event occurred, under CT law as I read it, unless someone could prove it was hazing, there was no law broken. Furthermore; even if a law was broken it would have been a misdemeanor. And no misdemeanor is going to be tried 30 years after the fact. So for all intents and purposes, even if this event occurred there was no crime to be investigated, even if "morals" or "feelings" were hurt. Which brings us to point 3. 3) The FBI did investigate. There was nothing for them to go into because as mentioned before, even if it happened, there was no crime likely committed. Furthermore, even if there was a suspected crime, there is no evidence to proceed on. Again, it was 30+ years ago. But that's the point isn't it? As I wrote about Clyburn's comments about the Bill of Rights, the this radical left that is consuming the Democratic Party has no regard for the rule of law, particularly when it comes to people they dislike. It is appalling to watch Democratic candidates for the highest office of the land speak of how the government failed to "exonerate" or "clear" a target of investigation as if THAT is the standard *here in America*. So once again I'm glad the NYT sunk once again into the gutter. It reminds me of why I consider it a trash organization now and why my current low opinion of the DNC is not without good reason. I'm just saddened that I see so many people blinded by their hate of Trump to see this huge actual factual threat to the Republic (not democracy) that the DNC has grown into.
Friday, September 13, 2019
I did not watch the Dem "debate" last night cause I already know: Orange Man Bad
We'll take your guns We work for foreign nationals. etc. But in the news this morning a clip featuring Andrew Yang caught my attention. In it he made a sales pitch for his Freedom Dividend which included the following:
We'll take your guns We work for foreign nationals. etc. But in the news this morning a clip featuring Andrew Yang caught my attention. In it he made a sales pitch for his Freedom Dividend which included the following:
“I’m going to do something unprecedented tonight," Yang said in his opening statement. "My campaign will now give a freedom dividend of $1,000 a month for an entire year to 10 American families – someone watching this at home right now. If you believe that you can solve your own problems better than any politician go to Yang2020.com and tell us how $1,000 a month will do just that.”I'm not sure how legal it is for a presidential campaign to pay potential voters in order to get their support but that's not what caught my attention. No, the line was:
If you believe that you can solve your own problems better than any politician go to Yang2020.com...This is a classic "conservative" position. You are better at spending your money on your needs than the government. Hence the government should tax you less, allowing you to spend your money "wisely". You cannot be for Yang (or agree with his freedom dividend) and then have a problem with Trump's tax cut (which, on average spared tax payers $1k). My understanding is that the comment got laughs from the other candidates. Not surprising, such a "you can do better with the money than the government" attitude is alien to the current left. I hope you enjoyed that $1K 'cause if Trump loses, you'll be giving up more of your cheque...again.
Monday, September 09, 2019
As read in Breitbart:
Clyburn said based off of conversations he has all the time, he believes there would be “strong support against the Bill of Rights” among people who would like to see many of the guarantees “uprooted.”No lie.
“I really believe sincerely – the climate that we’re in today – if the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments of the United States Constitution, were put before the public today, I’m not too sure that we would hold onto the Bill of Rights,” Clyburn declared during the interview with MSNBC. “Especially when I see what people are doing with the Second Amendment and no telling what they would do with the First Amendment.”Clyburn is absolutely right. Lets examine: 1)"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The left has created this thing called "hate speech" in which they decide what terms they don't like and attempt to "cancel" anyone who uses said language. I guarantee that if they could they would kill the 1A (cause they don't think "hate speech" is free speech). Second example: The attacks on Chick-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, Masterpiece Cake Shop, etc. So yup. 1A, done. 2)"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." All gun control laws are infringements period. Whether we agree with the whole "state interest" angle or not, they are infringement. I won't go into the "militia" argument because there are those who have covered it better than I can (for example). At the end of the day, we have candidates for the highest office in the land talking about confiscation of semi-auto guns (which almost all of them nowadays are). So 2A done. Skipping 3rd since we're not there yet. I'm going to put 4, 5 and 6 together since they all apply to legal issues
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.#MeToo. If you've been accused you must be guilty. Rape shield laws: Cannot confront accuser. Campus kangaroo courts. Nuff said. I don't really see the others being endangered. Perhaps it's my ignorance of their importance (I get entire powers not delegated part), But since most people have no working knowledge of them I can't say whether they would toss them as well. I will say that I have met people who think the Federal Government should have all power over states though. So Clyburn is right.