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.
Thursday, September 05, 2019
So trump was seen with a clearly "faked" weather forecast about Dorian's path. Once again, he left himself open to being shown to be a liar. But was he lying? If you go strictly by the doctored image, then yes. But if you had been following reports of the storm then you know that he was NOT. Early Dorian forecasts showed that Dorian had multiple probable paths: