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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Jersey. In November?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manchester Joins Rotherham

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

Talk about white privilege.

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

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

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

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

But Meghan Markle is moving to Canada yo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bernie And Warren Sitting At A Table

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

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

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

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

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

I think that reflects poorly on the qualifications of Warren.

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

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

Va Gov Makes 2nd Amendment a Racial Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McCain's Ghost

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

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

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

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

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

This later lead to:

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

The rest, as is said, is history.

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

I'm here to review your progress...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wherefore Art Thou Black Man?

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

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

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

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

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

Her husband is probably among these fellows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black wives matter.

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

But they cannot even fix a faucet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smuggle to Italy. Sounds like a better plan.

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

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

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

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

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

Not a single MOFO even offered to help.

USA Today's Other PsyOp

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

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

USA Today Runs PsyOP Against It's Readers

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

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

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

Here's USA Today on the shooting in Texas:

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

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

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

And that's terrifying. [My underlines]

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Then there is the Big Lie:

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

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

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

Tom Steyer: Total Fool

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".

The Earth's climate is always changing. That's how the system is *supposed* to work. There is no "ending" climate change without literally destroying the planet. If Steyer and his team can't get basic science like this right, why should we hand him the power of the executive?

Tulsi Fails The Impeachment Test

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.

Virginia's Militias

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?

Virginia, New York and A Run Up To Hot Civil War

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.

Here's What You Said...

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.

State Sen Liu Capes For Blacks

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.

Crown Media And Zola Are Cowards

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.

Comparing Nixon, Clinton and Trump

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.

A Tale Of Two Headlines

Homepage of the NY Times as of 8:50AM today:

Why, if the shootings in Jersey City, among others, were from non-white, arguably non-right wing (as is commonly known in the US) persons, is the NYPD setting up a task force to target "Far Right Extremists"? We all know that in the US "Far right extremist" is a common term for white people who hold non approved opinions on race.

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.

Don't Make Excuses

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.

Always An Excuse For The Deep State

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 applications

Agents 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.

African Migration as an Economic Drain

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.