Sunday, August 18

Questions for Americans

Ever notice how eager non-Muslim liberals are to lecture us as to "the REAL objectives of Islam"?  "The Koran doesn't mean X, but really means Y...."

And did you ever notice how many Americans have dutifully echoed the liberal categorization--by self-styled "elites" in the Lying Mainstream Media and politics--that Islam is "the religion of peace"?

Note that they didn't say Islam was "A religion of peace," but "the"--clearly meaning "the only."  If so, that would mean all other religions were NOT religions of peace.  Hmmm....  Who benefits from this propaganda?

How many leaders of nominally Christian denominations objected to Americans calling Islam "the religion of peace"?  I haven't seen one.

And if Islam is supposedly a religion of peace, how many Muslim leaders have been willing to say something like "The Koran's command that infidels must either convert, or pay the jizya, or be killed, isn't to be taken literally, but is just a metaphor intended to get Muslims to try to convert non-believers"?

I haven't seen a single one.

Gosh, if Islam is really a religion of peace, you'd think its leaders would try to explain that the Koran doesn't literally mean unbelievers--people they call infidels or kuffar--who refuse to either convert to Islam or pay the jizya are to be killed.  But they haven't.  Not one of 'em.

That should tell you all you need to know.

Now, before everyone at Google gets their knickers in a twist, I'm not even remotely claiming that all Muslims are bent on taking over the world, or that all Muslims want to kill infidels or Jews.  My sole purpose here is to point out the hypocrisy, and the clear effort by American liberals to tell you what Islam is, and what its goals are.

And now the kicker:  Ask yourself why American liberals would want to fly air cover for radical Islam.

Saturday, August 17

DOJ admits one of its employees used DOJ info to help her son's gang; media yawns: "local interest only"

The Department of Justice says one of its employees "repeatedly" helped a ruthless street gang by giving gang members the names of informants and cooperating witnesses.

Tawanna Hilliard worked in the US Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey.  According to the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, for two years, Hilliard used her access to critical DOJ information to help her son Tyquan and his gang identify informants.
By the way, this story is from the website of a source that normally hates law enforcement, which makes this an "admission against interest" and thus more likely to be true. 

So what should you learn from this?  That you can totally trust the gruberment with all your most sensitive information.  Cuz all dem gruberment employees are, like, totally trustworthy, and would never use or sell your sensitive information in a way that would expose you to any risk.

You know what else we can learn from this?  That we need the gruberment to run all health-care, for everyone.  Cuz look how well your state's DMV works, eh?  Or the Veterans' Administration.  Quality stuff, citizen.

U.K. has a bureau that bans ads showing people doing "normal" things

European nations are SO much more sophisticated than we are, eh?

Well, that's what our so-called "elites" continually tell you.

Here's an example:  Britain now has a government bureaucracy called the "Advertising Standards Authority."  Which employs 3,285 people, including an "Investigations Manager."

And what would you think an "investigations manager" does for the government?  You'd think it bans ads that make false or unsupported claims or some such, eh?  Or maybe ads by conservative groups, as Fakebook has already done here.  Yeah, dat seems totes reasonable.

Nope.  What that bureaucrat does is...ban ads that feminists consider not to advance social engineering objectives.  The new rules demand that ads must not include “gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offense.”

Of course you can't believe a government would actually do that.  Total waste of tax money, eh?

Amusing that you'd think "progressive" politicians would be influenced by logic.

In any case, Investigations Manager Jessica Tye says she recently banned two ads.  One, by Volkswagen, showed men “engaged in adventurous activities,” while the only two women depicted were asleep in a tent and sitting by a baby carriage.

Jessica also banned an ad that showed two distracted young fathers in a restaurant "who appeared unable to care for children effectively.”

Ah, well NOW it makes perfect sense, eh?  The ads apparently violated the new rules, which demand that ads not portray “gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offense.”  And surely you can see the harm those ads caused, right?

And if you can't see any actual, y'know, harm, at least you can see "serious offense," right?

Can't see "serious offense" either?  No matter:  the RULZ have a "catch-all:" "Widespread offense."  Because even if the "offense" was trivial, half the wimmenz in da UK were undoubtedly offended, so there ya go.

In the future the only ads that'll be allowed will be ones that don't depict people in classic roles.  Women astronauts and presidents will be fine.  Women being mothers, banned.  Men as hairdressers, fine.  Men climbing mountains, banned.

If you don't think that's coming here under a Democrat president, you're too naive to breathe.

Is there anyone in the U.S. who wonders why white birthrates in all western nations are below replacement levels?  Yeah, didn't think so.

Dem leaders: 'Numbers? Reality? Both are tools of the oppressor, so we reject 'em!'

Liberals and Democrat politicians implicitly believe that if they just DEMAND something loudly enough, whatever they demanded will work.  Indeed, MUST work.  Because they are compassionate, right-thinking elites, and they want to do good!  (Well, most of 'em.)

With credentials like those, how could a liberal program NOT work, eh?

Little details, like underestimateing costs by a factor of 3 or more, simply don't matter to these people.  They'll just pass another law to fix it.

This is the thought process that enabled the current top Democrat, Speaker of the f''n House Nancy Pelosi, to go before scores of cameras and say (literally) "We have to pass [Obamacare] to see what's in it."

Literally, that's what she said.  And not a single Mainstream Media outlet derided her for that.

Imagine the howls of derision on every front page if a Republican speaker said something that dumb.

Okay, the above is necessary background for something extremely serious, and relevant, that you can do something to avoid.  Here it is:

a)  Hospitals can't refuse Medicare patients.  b) Because the government runs Medicare, the government tells hospitals (and doctors) what it will pay for each and every procedure.  This amount is ALWAYS less than the hospital charges privately-insured patients.  Hospitals don't have any choice, since the law says they MUST accept everyone.  So it's either take what Medicare decrees, or get nothing.

c)  Lots of hospitals in the U.S. are going bankrupt, and closing.  Others are teetering on the brink.  They're staying solvent (i.e. can keep running) only because private insurance companies pay more for all procedures than Medicare will.

d)  You may have heard that every single Democrat candidate supports "Medicare for all"--which would make private insurance illegal.

If you're a college student or college graduate, surely you're smart enough to draw the obvious conclusion:  If the Democrats win in 2020, and ram "Medicare for all" down your throat, outlawing all private health insurance, many more hospitals will lose the extra income that now keeps them solvent.

Democrat leaders: "Whut?  Nah, we dispute that conclusion.  You used 'white supremacist' logic, which means you're wrong.  You've ignored the benefits of syllogistic cotangential exponential cost-curve bending, first described by President Obama (pbuh).  So you're wrong!"

But ya know, reality has a way of revealing what's true and what's bullshit--sometimes at great cost to the people who voted for the party that pushed the bullshit.  (Though interesting, never at any cost to the politicians who actually passed the unworkable program.  They always get away free.)

Of course Democrats must have wonks who know all the above. So they've already devised a "fix."  And amazingly, I already mentioned it in the 3rd 'graf above:  They just pass another law to patch any flaws in the first one.  Lather, rinse, repeat as often as needed.

In this case Bernie Sanders--who has more experience with socialism than his rivals--has already proposed a $20 Billion fund to prop up failing hospitals.  This has the double-benefit of eliminating any criticism of "Medicare for all" from the companies that run hospitals--which would have lost money like mad under MFA--since it signals them that the government will take care of them.

How cool is that, eh?

Say, do you wonder how Sanders and staff came up with the $20 billion figure?

Hahahahahaha!   Simple:  Pulled it out of the air.  Cuz the actual, y'know, number doesn't matter a bit.  After they're in power they can increase it by a factor of ten, and no one will say a word.

Cuz, "free medical care for everyone, baby!  Just like Europe!  It's a 'basic human right,' just like a house or cell phone or 65-inch TV, citizen."

And if you dare to disagree with 'em you must be raaaacist.

Friday, August 16

Talking head says he's "excited" about whites becoming a minority in the U.S.

If you think the mainstream media is...weird...biased against you and our historic actively siding with people who want to destroy this country as we've known're not dreaming.  Here's yet another talking head, Anderson Cooper, saying he finds the rapid decline in the percentage of white Americans "exciting:"

Question for ya:  What are the chances that a person who's "excited" about the prospect of whites becoming a minority in the U.S. will tell you the truth about things that endanger whites?

BTW, Cooper is homosexual, so do ya think he might be hostile to what he views as the "establishment"?

Here's the link to the letter I referred to earlier

A few hours ago I posted some information from something I described as "senate testimony."  I'm already getting flak from readers claiming they don't see anything about this on the Mainstream Media.  I'm...shocked.  So here's the link.  It's a letter to senators Grassley and Johnson, dated last Wednesday (August 14th, 2019) and signed by both the Inspector General for the DOJ, and the "Inspector General of the Intelligence Community."

The letter--with 100 pages of attachments--discusses the spurious email recipient that appears in the "To" block in every email that went through Hilliary's private email server.  That email address is

Paul Combetta, working for Hilliary contractor Platte River Networks, says he created the carterheavyindustries email address to copy all emails in case Hillary’s bathroom server crashed.  He claims to know nothing about the Chinese company with a similar name, and was never asked to explain how he selected that name.  The FBI's investigator, Peter Strzok, didn't press the question.

The DoJ IG asked Combetta to answer their questions about this but Combetta declined.  For some strange reason the DOJ IG didn't press the point.  And of course no one has been able to find more evidence after Hillary had her aides destroy her government Blackberries and erase her server beyond hope of forensic recovery.

The explanations sound like a complete pack of lies--excuses made to cover up Hilliary's stupidity or corruption, and the complicity of the entire leadership of the FBI and DOJ.

Attachments to letter:
  • Exhibit 1: copy of the Majority’s questions and the corresponding witness answers
  • Ex 2:  endless emails showing intel community briefed FBI on the spurious email address in Feb of 2016
  • Ex 3:  more docs from ICIG; I didn't find anything worthwhile here but you might.
  • Ex 4: (page 98 of the pdf): letter dated April 9, 2019, from the IC and DOJ IG summarizing their findings related to the spurious email address found in the recipients block of all emails to Hilliary’s private, unencrypted, unsecure email server.
Shandong Carter Heavy Industry Co., Ltd of China has a website, stating that it's "a solely-owned enterprise run by USA Carter Heavy Industry Group, specializing in the manufacture and export of complete sets of mini excavators."

Well isn't that...interesting.  The Chinese website says the Chinese company is "run by" what they want you to think is a USA parent company.  But think for a moment:  Have you ever seen a company founded in the U.S., by Americans, that begins the company name with "USA"?  No, you haven't.  A company would only use that when setting up a foreign subsidiary, to distinguish it from the parent company.

Also, authentic American syntax would put the location of the subsidiary at the end of the company name (i.e. Jones and Company Brazil) instead of before the company name.  Putting the country first is how orientals would do it.  This is one of those "idiomatic" details that can trap even trained spies.

Hell of a coincidence, eh?  I mean, what are the odds that Combetta would a) set up a random dummy email account just to "backup" emails on Hilliary's server; and b) randomly create a name for the dummy account that matched an existing Chinese company; and c) decline to tell investigators how he settled on that name, or indeed, to answer any more questions on any subject.

But hey, let's give ol' Peter Strzok his old job back, with pension and back pay.  Cuz he's such an honest, competent guy.

And vote Democrat in 2020, so those nasty ol' Rethuglicans trying to beat up on poor, honest Hilliary won't have any power to keep hurting the poor, innocent dear.

IRS criminal investigator admits downloading IRS info damaging to Trump and sending it to Avenatti

Pretty sure you didn't hear that an IRS "investigative analyst" pleaded guilty Wednesday to leaking confidential financial information about Michael Cohen to corrupt nutter Michael Avenatti.

John C. Fry, 54, used the IRS’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to download five "Suspicious Activity Reports on Cohen and his company.  SARs are reports banks are ordered to file if they find transactions defined as "suspicious."

Within days of Fry leaking the intel, Avenatti publicized the information on Twitter.

Fry faces a maximum sentence of five years behind bars and up to $250,000 in fines.  I suspect he'll get six months and a $10,000 fine.  We'll see.

Frankly I'm amazed the Deep State didn't manage to fix this case to avoid prosecuting their asset.

Wait, my bad:  Repeat after me, citizen:  There is no such thing as the Deep State.  That's just a boogeyman created by right-wing extremists to get their dumb supporters to vote for Trump.

There is no such thing as the Deep State.

Some familiar lines

Where have you heard these lines before?
  • "We didn't print it cuz that's old news"
  • "We didn't print it cuz the story is local interest only"
  • "We didn't print it cuz the shooter was a 'lone wolf'' with no terrorist ties" 
  • "No terror factor at all--the guy was just a 'rogue employee'" 
  • "Another case of Republicans pouncing on a harmless gaffe by the leading Democrat candidate"
  • "There was no intent to break the law, so no harm"
  • "No controlling legal authority on these contributions from foreign sources"
  • "This is just a 'right-wing witch hunt;' an obsession of conspiracy theorists" 
  • "The Democrat party is 'focused on the needs of middle-class Americans.'"

Senate committee releases demning new information about Hilliary's email server

Yesterday a senate committee released two pages of testimony from a named staffer with the Inspector General for the Intel Community, who said Hillary Clinton's email server had sent a copy of every email it held to yet another non-government email address.  It did this by adding the new address to the block of recipients.

The address was ""  Carter Heavy Industries is a Chinese company with a subsidiary in Florida.  The email address was for the Florida sub, since sending to a ".cn" would presumably have been a bit...over the top.

I posted this information over 18 months ago.  Not a word about it appeared in any Lying Mainstream Media outlet.

Yeah, big surprise.

So if this is accurate, what does it mean to you and me?

It means that the Chinese government was getting copies of beyond-Top-Secret State Department cables, sent to Hilliary's private email server by Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and other Clinton aides, in real-time. 
Now, a cunning prick named Paul Combetta, working for a Hilliary contractor (Platte River Networks), testified that he created the account in 2012 for a totally benign reason.  This is a cover, a Narrative, because the account was receiving Hilliary emails as early as 2009.  See below:
Combetta also testified that there was a perfectly normal, innocuous explanation for the fact that carterheavyindustries@gmail appeared on every Hilliary email:  It was cuz after he (Combetta) was hired, he'd uploaded all her emails to this account simply to back them up in case her server crashed.

At the end of this post a commenter shows why this is bullshit.  But there's another, easier way to show Combetta is lying:  Copies of Hilliary's emails were going to the chinese company as early as 2009.  Hilliary didn't hire Platte River Networks (Combetta) until 2013.

Oooh, how to explain that one, eh?

Think about all this for a moment.  The unusual, out-of-place email address seems to have appeared in the "To:" block on virtually every email on Hilliary's server.  Any investigator who had access to one of these emails would have seen this out-of-place recipient.

For the Narrative to hold, they expect you to believe that not a single investigator ever spotted the totally out of place recipient.  Really?  Can you say "coverup"?

If anyone did spot it, the FBI et al expect us to believe not a single person in the entire FBI ever looked into who "carterheavyindustries" was, or asked why a Florida company making small excavators would be on Hilliary's distribution list.

And ya know, in view of how long it took the FBI to raid Epstein's island, it's not hard to believe they really are that incompetent.  But give Comey's lying testimony ("the law about classified info requires an intent."  It doesn't), it would appear that in this case coverup is more likely than incompetence.

Fire them.  All.  Then burn down the building and salt the earth.  Then years later, if people really think we need an FBI, rebuild the headquarters in, oh, Goatmuzzle, Montana. With no internet service.

Finally, here's an interesting post from commenter "Brian" at Ace:  First he notes another commenter's theory:
   I don't think the account was created until after she was out of office, but in 2014 her IT guy uploaded the entire archive from to it.  He said he created the account. [Demonstrably false.] Anyone with the password could have logged into it and downloaded the archive.
   The active forwarding didn't happen while she was Secretary of State, but uploading the archive took care of that.
    Now, why choose as the email address [that Combetta claims he uploaded all her emails to]?  [Paul Combetta] claims it was an account he used to create a duplicate so he could copy it and restore the when they changed servers or something. But
why choose THAT name in particular? 
    One theory is so that Chinese intelligence operating within Carter Heavy Industries could use it. An alternative theory [is that] the IT guy was just trying to misdirect [anyone who might investigate].
Brian calls bullshit:
The mail server was running Microsoft Exchange 2010 with the webmail login wide open to anyone who browsed to I know because when news first broke I visited it. It actually stayed online for several days after becoming publicly known.  ANYONE could have "hacked" into it and downloaded everything they wanted. I put "hacked" in quotes because it's so trivial with Exchange 2010 (and was when this server was discovered) that it's a stretch to even call it a hack.
He then takes on another of the excusers claims:
"The IT guy claims it was an account he used to create a duplicate [backup of emails] so he could restore the [emails] when they changed servers or something."
That's nonsense.  [To move emails] to another server you dump everything to PST files locally and then do an import to the new server. There are a dozen different ways to do that. Sending everything individually to a Gmail account is not one of them.
Posted by: Brian in New Orleans at August 15, 2019
Now I know my liberal PhD friend--a hard-core Democrat--will say "If this is accurate, and was known at the time, why weren't there any follow-up questions to expose the glaring contradictions?   Since there were no follow-ups, doesn't that suggest that none of this is true?"

Oooh, good point!  Wait... who was running the first investigation into all this?  Hmm...As I recall it was the FBI's top "counter-intelligence agent," one Peter Strzok.   That's why the investigation ended with no charges filed against Combetta, and a ton of loose ends.

It's also worth noting that the FBI gave Combetta immunity, yet he was never interviewed later and asked to explain the inconsistencies.  Seems to show either coverup or incompetence.  And given that Strzok is on recored (texts to his mistress, Lisa Page) promising to stop Trump from being elected, I think coverup is a more likely choice.

You're all being played, folks.  Just like the wails of "Trump is separating chilluns from their parents in the concentration camps!"

Thursday, August 15

Update on Epstein

A tale about a climate guru whose prediction have always been wrong

30 years ago Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified to a Senate committee that a heat wave irritating Washington was caused by a new thing: “the greenhouse effect."  It was the start of a huge debate about whether the planet was warming, and if so, how much; and if so, what was causing it?

Every member of the environmental movement--most of whom had no grasp of the scientific issues involved--immediately supported Hansen.

Hansen described three possible scenarios for the world’s climate:  Business as usual, he said, would produce a one degree Celsius increase in the world’s temperature in 30 years--i.e. today.  The second case, that emissions would increase at the same rate they had achieved in 1988, would produce a world temperature increase of seven-tenths of one degree Celsius by now.  And the last case was that IF carbon emissions could be reduced after 2000, we'd get a slight increase in temperature until 2000, but stable temperature afterwards.

So what's happened since 1988?

Carbon dioxide in the atomosphere continued to increase at exactly the same rate as it had since 1964, and yet...the world has only warmed a tenth of a degree or so since 1988, and not by a statistically significant amount since 2000, apart from 2015-2016; then the temperature rose slightly after an unusually strong El Nino, and then fell again even as carbon emissions continued to increase.

The same predictions were made by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

As the predictions of both were defied by reality, Hansen reinforced his predictions of climate doom: In 2007 he predicted that within 100 year all Greenland’s ice would melt and ocean levels would rise by 22 feet.  While only a dozen years have passed since his prediction, no ice has been lost in Greenland, other than what melts every summer and then forms again.  Sea levels have not risen appreciably.

Undaunted, Hansen predicted that hurricanes and tornadoes would increase in number AND become stronger--a prediction quickly repeated by virtually every mainstream media outlet.  While strong storms obviously continue to happen, they're neither more numerous nor stronger.

Given that Hansen’s predictions have all bombed, you might think he might have recanted.  Of course he hasn't. 

Every serious person agrees that humans must be good stewards of the world and its environment. 
But there is no justification whatever for the nonsense of the Paris climate accord, where the administration of president Barack Obama committed to saddle American industry with costs of tens of billions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions, while simultaneously letting the world’s main offenders, China and India, do nothing.

The lessons of all this are clear, but Democrat politicians and virtually all academics continue to call for the deindustrialization of the West. 

Economic suicide is only tempting to those who have forgotten what pre-industrial life was like.

H/T Conrad Black

Warren proposes federal tax on BOTH guns and ammunition--specifically to make it harder to buy a gun

It's brilliant! Slap a $500 per gun tax on guns, and five bucks on every bullet, and voila! Gun and ammo sales would plummet! And without any need to repeal that dumb "Second Amendment" thingy. It's SO clever of us! So vote Democrat in 2020. And give us 60 votes in the senate, too.

22 states sue Trump admin for rescinding Obama rule that would have forced electricity prices to triple

Yesterday 22 states, led by California and New York, sued the Trump administration for...mumble mumble.  Fill in anything you can think of.  Must be a day ending in "y", eh?  But you need to understand this story, cuz it shows yet again how far liberals and Democrat pols are willing to go to get what they want, no matter if it costs you dearly.

This time the states were suing to try to block the Trump administration from rescinding some crippling rules enacted by the Obama administration on how electricity could be produced in the U.S.--rules Obama admitted would "necessarily cause the price of electricity to skyrocket."

Specifically:  With great fanfare, in August of 2015 Obozo approvingly announced a 460-page "rule" by his EPA, titled "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines."  This by itself shows what lying sacks of shit the people pushing this were, cuz the damn thing is NOT simply a "guideline," and if a utility broke one of the gazillion rules the EPA put in the thing, they'd fine you into bankruptcy.

The issuance of this rule followed a necessary decree declaring carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."  We'll get to that later.  The rule also fulfilled a campaign promise Obama made to a group of wealthy donors in San Francisco, when he pledged to "bankrupt" any utility that tried to open a coal-fired powerplant.

The "rule" demanded that all electric utilities in the U.S. "modify" their facilities so that overall, they would emit 32% less CO2 than in 2005.  The rule generously gave utilities several choices for how they could do this:  they could use wind or solar, or "lower-carbon-dioxide-emitting natural gas," or they could "increase the generation efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants."

So no new nuclear powerplants, and no dams.  "But we've been extremely generous in letting you choose from four wonderful options, comrade!"

Oh wait, I didn't mention the "magic bullet" that Obozo and the EPA created:  They required every state to develop a plan to do what the "guidelines" [bullshit] demanded.  And then they invoked what they intended as the magic phrase:  "States may use regionally available low carbon generation sources when substituting for in-state coal generation, and [may] coordinate with other states to develop multi-state plans.

Ah.  "Coordinate with other states to develop multi-state plans," y'say?  Sure, that'll do the trick.

By now almost everyone realizes that wind and solar are intermittent--can't be relied on for continuous power.  Natural gas plants are great, but because homes can use gas, the cost of electricity produced from burning gas is more than the cost when using coal.  That's where "...will necessarily cause the price of electricity to skyrocket" comes in.

But what about the last option--"increasing the generation efficiency of existing fossil-fueled plants"?  Why, simple, comrade:  Just slap a "CO2 scrubber" on your boiler exhausts!

Ah.  Gosh, it's so obvious.  "Just slap a CO2 scrubber on..."   Got it.

Of course contrary to the beliefs of leftists, the folks who operate utilities aren't stupid.  They actually research how to improve things, constantly.  They'd already looked at ways to do this, and had a good idea how much it would increase their cost per kilowatt-hour.  Something like 300%.

They concluded that it would be less expensive--both for the utilities and for consumers--to just scrap vitually all coal-fired plants and build new gas-fired plants.  Of course the cost of those new plants is always paid by consumers.  But hey, it's worth it, right?  Cuz if the U.S. doesn't scrap all its coal-fired plants the world will end in just ten years!

The utilities reported this to Obozo's EPA, which shrugged.  "Not our problem, comrade."

Seriously, if you've every tried to read the actual text of any law, or the Code of Federal Regulations, you know how it's absolute rubbish, but this one is primo gibberish.

Anyway, Trump directed his EPA chief to reconsider the rule, and it was ultimately rescinded.  Which is the basis for the new lawsuit just filed by 22 states.

See, that's what "resistance" is all about, comrade.  If you wanna cripple a nation without firing a shot, cripple its economy by making electricity three times more costly.  Output falls, prices rise, people starve, communists win.  Just like Venezuela!  It's really easy if you have a Marxist Muslim president, but really any Democrat will do, since they all believe global warming is fatal and unprecedented, and is caused by CO2 emitted by humans.

But the only people being punished are Americans.  No buy-in from China or Russia or India.  Cuz, fairness, comrade.

UK cops brag about confiscating "weapons," show pic of pliers and a rasp

Britain has gone so far down the tubes that the cops are now using Twatter to boast about confiscating ordinary pliers and rasps from citizens, claiming they've taken "weapons" off the street!

Of course you don't believe that.  No police could possibly be that dense, eh? 

Well, except our own FBI / DOJ for waiting years to raid Epstein's private island, giving Eppie years to destroy all video evidence of whatever was actually going on.  But hey, who expected anything else, right?

Or the Deep State arranging every piece of strange, unusual, rule-breaking behavior needed to ensure Eppie was all alone in an unmonitored cell--no security video--so he could be killed without risk to the killer.  Cuz hey, who expected anything else, right?

But really, you need to see the Brit cops showing a pic of two deadly pair of assault pliers and a semi-automatic, silencer-equipped RASP, bragging that those tools are actually weapons.

And do read the comments there.  Really funny.  Like this one:

Wednesday, August 14

NY Times demotes deputy editor for accidentally offending the Left; "offender" grovels

The story below will probably strike many readers as trivial, since it's about why a deputy editor for the NY Times was demoted, and banned by the Times from using Twitter as a condition of keeping even his lower-ranking job.

I thought it was worth posting because one rarely sees written evidence of the Left punishing its own members for failing to conform to its demands.  And to have the evidence published by the Left itself should make it hard to question its accuracy, eh?  So here's the story as CNN related it:
(CNN Business) Jonathan Weisman, deputy Washington editor for The New York Times, has been demoted after a pair of incidents in which he ignited controversy on Twitter, the newspaper said Tuesday.

"Jonathan Weisman met with [Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet] today and apologized for his recent serious lapses in judgment. As a consequence of his actions, he has been demoted and will no longer be overseeing the team that covers Congress or be active on social media
Got it?  "...a pair of incidents in which he ignited controversy." So what did he do that so offended his bosses at the Times?  Did he criticize socialism or open borders?  Ask how the Dems planned to cover the cost of "erasing" all student loans?  Hint that there just might have been something goofy about the FBI joke of an "investigation" of Hilliary's email server?
Well, something just as serious:  He said some outrageous things in two "tweets."  But the Left was also demanding that he be punished for writing a perfectly accurate headline.

Saying Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are from the Midwest is like saying Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin) is from Texas or John Lewis (D-Atlanta) is from the Deep South.  C’mon.
Outrageous!  So you can see why the Times was absolutely forced to demote Weisman, right? say you don't see why that statement is offensive?  Yeah, I didn't either.  You have to be on the Left to pick up on the dog-whistle there.  See, a senator from Missouri had tweeted "Free stuff from the government does not play well in the Midwest.”  Whereupon a charmer named Waleed Shahid showed typical leftist "logic," tweeting "Medicare and Social Security are both technically 'free stuff' and they play very well," and that both Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib represented midwestern states.

Both those things are "Free"?  Really?  Gee, in that case I wonder where all those "SSRI" and "Medicare" deductions on every single paycheck I ever got were going, eh?  But no matter--to a leftist, it's free.

Weisman then responded with the tweet above.  By comparing the two to Doggett and Lewis he clearly meant that the two leftist Dems were hardly representative of midwestern values, but the Left went nuts, screaming "raaaacism."  Weisman quickly deleted the tweet.

Then last week Weisman offended the Left again when he noted that the same radical-Left Justice Democrats that drafted AOC announced that they were backing a candidate to oppose an "African-American Democrat" in the primary.  This is highly unusual, since political parties that already have the huge advantage of incumbency rarely want to defeat their own office-holder.

Recognizing the unusual nature of the move, Weisman tweeted,
Justice Democrats has backed another primary challenger, this one seeking to unseat an African-American Democrat, Joyce Beatty, who represents Columbus.
See??  Outrageous!  You can easily see why the Times... Wait, you don't, do ya.  Yeah, me neither.  The tweet is perfectly factual and seemingly uncritical.  So was there more to it?  Well, 40 minutes later the new challenger tweeted "I am also black."

Ah, NOW you can see the problem. still can't?  Must be more to it.  Sure enough, 18 minutes later Weisman responded "@justicedems's endorsement included a photo."

Finally, there it is.  And predictably, the Left went into full-outrage mode.  For Times managing editor Dean Baquet it was the last straw. 

Baquet was still miffed at Weisman over an outrage a week earlier:  After the shooting in El Paso the president had said "No one should act with hate."  Weisman then wrote the story's headline as "Trump urges unity against racism."

Again predictably, the Left went crazy:  How DARE the Times use THAT headline?!  And you can see why.  Sure, the headline was both accurate and informative, but that wasn't good enough for the Left, cuz it did NOT demonize Trump.  Leftists deluged the Times with complaints, and the Times caved, changing the headline in later editions.

To make sure the Left was fully informed that the Times had totally kissed their ring, the paper issued a statement listing the punishment:
Jonathan Weisman met with [Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet] today and apologized for his recent serious lapses in judgment. As a consequence of his actions, he has been demoted and will no longer be overseeing the team that covers Congress or be active on social media. We don’t typically discuss personnel matters but we’re doing so in this instance with Jonathan’s knowledge,” a Times spokesperson said in a statement…
But we're not quite done:  In brief interview--tweeted--Weisman grovelled even more, saying
I accept Dean’s judgment. I think he’s right to do what he’s doing. I embarrassed the newspaper, and he had to act.”
You'd be hard-pressed to find a better example of how rigidly the Left demands total conformity from the media--or how eager the media is to comply with those demands.

Tuesday, August 13

Official narrative is that Epstein committed suicide. Really?

I've now read at least a dozen articles on Mainstream Media sites, pushing the idea that Epstein committed suicide.  You may recall that this was what every media outlet was reporting within minutes of the announcement that he'd been found dead--obviously long before anyone could have rationally concluded that the death was indeed a suicide.

Having extensively studied the JFK assassination, and all the ridiculously brazen lies--explicit and implicit--pushed by the Warren Commission, this is amusing.  If you have power, it's absurdly easy to get people to believe whatever you want them to.  Known facts that contradict the official narrative are either ignored or buried.  Witnesses whose testimony doesn't support the narrative aren't called to testify.

For example, in the report on JFK's assassination, the FBI extensively test-fired the scoped rifle Lee Oswald left on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository.  The agent who fired the rifle reported that the telescopic sight was so far off the actual aim point that any round fired using the sight would have missed Kennedy by over six feet.

Most of you have probably never fired a scoped rifle, so you don't understand the significance of this.  It means that anyone using the scope to aim the rifle would have missed.  And while one might blindly fire and get a lucky hit, the narrative required that Oswald hit Kennedy twice.  You might get the million-to-one unaimed, lucky hit once, but not twice out of 3 shots.

To repeat: the results of the test-firing conclusively, absolutely ruled out the theory that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon.  Yet that was the selected official narrative.

Oooh, what to do??  Oh, here's an idea!  Simply...ignore it.  And they did.  And no one batted an eye, because the inconvenient fact--one that should have destroyed the entire official story, and couldn't be explained away--was simply outweighed by a number of other bits of testimony.

Obviously one person could have destroyed the Narrative: Oswald.  Solution?  Astonishingly, he was allowed to walk into the Dallas police station just before Oswald--the most high-value prisoner in the country--was to be moved, and to get to within a few feet of Oswald before fatally shooting him. 

"Nothing to see here, citizen.  Move along!  All just coincidence."

With this background, let's look at Epstein's amazingly-convenient death:  Clearly suicide is an obvious possibility--but what are the odds of all the following necessary things happening:
  • no video on the cell of the most important witness in the entire system;
  • someone--so far unidentified--took him off suicide watch, despite what was claimed to have been a prior suicide attempt just two weeks earlier;
  • someone--so far unidentified--transferred his cellmate to another cell earlier that evening;
  • finally something easy to understand: guards not checking on him as required, and even falsifying logs to say they had done timely checks.
For those unfamiliar with statistics, when several unrelated things must happen to produce a result, the probability of the outcome happening by chance is the product of the individual probabilities.

Translation: The odds of all these things happening by chance, within the necessary time window, are in the neighborhood of one in a million.

Without video we'll never know for sure, but here are some things to watch for when the "official report" is issued: 
  • Did investigators determine who ordered Epstein's cellmate moved?
  • What time was the order given to move him?
  • How common is it to move a prisoner to another cell at any time?
  • How common is it to move a prisoner at the time Epstein's cellmate was moved?
  • Did investigators ask every guard in the facility to list their location and movements around the time of the alleged suicide?
  • Did investigators confirm that testimony using tapes from the video cameras that were supposedly all over the facility?
If authorities claim security cameras either malfunctioned, or their video wasn't recording, or any excuse for not providing same, or if there are gaps in the record, it adds yet another unlikelihood to the Narrative.  Sort of like the astonishing plea deal Epstein got from Acosta.

Or like FBI only getting around to searching Epstein's island today instead of way back in 2001.

Man jailed for 18 months for digging fire-protection ponds on his own land finally cleared by court

When congress passes laws banning X or mandating Y, critics often note the potential for that law to be abused by an insane leftist judge.  Democrats quickly act to reassure you this couldn't possibly happen, and that anyone who claims it could is a dangerous, far-right conspiracy nut.

So how do Democrats react when it happens--again and again?

Why, they put their fingers in their ears.  Deny they ever heard of the law in question, let alone heard any concerns about possible abuse.  Let alone claimed such concerns were dumb paranoia.  Yep.  So here's example #3,795,607:

Everyone loves clean water, right?  So when congress proposed to help clean up waterways by prohibiting people from dumping waste into the nation’s “navigable waters,” virtually everyone applauded.  The result was the "Clean Water Act" of 1972.  And who could be against clean water, eh?

Congress claimed the power to do this by invoking the Constitution's "interstate commerce" clause.  Of course that meant the federal government could only exercise its unlimited power over waterways that could be used to transport goods between states, not lakes or ponds within a given state.  Cuz, "interstate commerce," see?  Such rivers were termed "navigable waters."
So to repeat, the legal rationale was that the CWA only applied to "waters" that could be used to transport goods from one state to another.  No one imagined that within a few years the government would be claiming that the CWA actually gave it the power to regulate even tiny ponds or "intermittent creeks" on private property.

The bad actors here are the insanely power-hungry bureaucrats in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers.  In 1989 the EPA claimed the act gave it the power to prevent a landowner from doing anything with a wetland that was near a ditch that eventually drained into navigable water 11 miles away.  Seventeen years later the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.

In 2001 the Corps claimed the CWA gave it the power to assert control over even isolated bodies of water – in that particular instance, an abandoned sand and gravel pit.  Again the courts disagreed. 

The cases illustrate an important point: When a government agency overreaches, is sued by a citizen and loses in court, it costs them nothing.  There's no penalty for trying to extend the agency's power, and the agency can keep trying new ways to extend its power--again with no penalty if it loses.

Thus it won't surprise anyone that in 2014 the EPA and Army Corps--with the explicit approval of the Obama administration--proposed a new rule that expand the definition of “navigable waters” beyond absurdity, so as to include virtually any wet spot – or occasional wet spot – in the country, including ditches, low spots that held water after storms, intermittent streams, ponds, impoundments, prairie potholes, and large ‘buffer areas’ of land adjacent to every waterway.” 
No way were these areas "navigable waters," nor could they be used for interstate commerce.
 In short, the two agencies--again with the explicit approval of the Obama administration--sought to assert regulatory power over a vast amount of private property--under the guise of "interstate commerce" and "navigable waters."

After a cosmetic "public comment period" of 60 days the agencies adopted the new defninition.
In 2013 agents from the EPA visited a Montana rancher, Joe Robertson regarding ponds he'd built on what the government claimed was U.S. property.  The rancher said he'd built the ponds to impound water for firefighting. The work consisted of nine ponds of varying sizes, including some as large as approximately 4900 square feet (i.e. 70 feet on a side).  
Government regulators claimed Robertson's building ponds interfered with “navigable water,”  The  EPA claimed the ditch a federally protected waterway under the Clean Water Act and required a federal permit—even though his home is 40 miles from the Jefferson River, the nearest navigable waterway.
The EPA brought the entire weight of the federal gruberment down on the guy, sentencing him to 18 months in prison and fining him $130,000.  (And if you want a real education in power, click here to read the press release from the "Department of Justice" bragging about how great they were in taking out this grave threat to the security of the American people.  Seriously, the word "agent" is always capitalized, as is the 3-word term "Criminal Special Agents."  You'd think this was about the sale of nuclear weapons secrets to China or something.)
Robertson appealed, arguing that the tiny stream could not possibly be considered "navigable waters," but the thoroughly socialist, Obozo-supporting 9th circuit--using the new "We Own Every Drop of Water in the U.S." definition--ruled against him.

He appealed to the Supreme Court.  And now something very interesting happened:  the Supreme Court quietly granted Robertson’s petition without even hearing oral arguments.

This is interesting cuz it's a sign that the court was thinking something was REALLY rotten with this case.  And sure enough, the Supreme Court ordered the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider their ruling.  Last month the 9th Circuit reversed its earlier ruling, clearing Robertson and removing the $130,000 fine.

No word on whether Robertson planned to sue for the year-and-a-half of his life that the 78-year-old man had just spent in prison--for digging fire protective ponds near his home without a federal permit.

Oh wait: That's because Robertson is dead.  Died just after being paroled from prison, and a month before the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal.

For being jailed and fined for...building firefighting ponds without a federal permit.  On "navigable waters" four inches wide.

If you're a Democrat pol or a big-government fan:  Own this.  And don't ever EVER piously claim your shit laws won't--and can't--be absurdly expanded to do things never intended. 

Next week:  How Democrats have already claimed that "Title IX" confers special protected status on trannies.  Meaning every sports organization would be forced to allow men to compete against women in what were once amusingly called "womens' sports."  You'll love it.

Another great Obozo line, captured on video forever: "Does he think he has some sort of magic wand?"

In 2016 emperor Obozo campaigned like mad to get Hilliary elected.  One of the lines he used was to ridicule Trump for saying he was gonna bring tens of thousands of jobs--jobs that had been exported to foreign countries--back to the U.S, and would make our economy grow a lot more than the two-percent stuff that marked most of Obama's 8 years.

Obozo ridiculed this notion, ridiculed Trump.  "What, does he have some kind of magic wand?  How exactly does he plan to do that?  And the answer is usually, he doesn't."

If you're a college-age American you were too young to have noticed Obozo saying this, or to understand the ramifications.  In fact many Democrat voters of all ages don't believe he said it.

As they say, Let's roll the tape:

"Gosh, I sure wish Trump would do something good about the economy.  It's just AWFUL, limping along, high unemployment, especially for minorities; low growth.  Just AWFUL!  Wait...what?

Interesting techniques used by the Left to advance their goals

Continuing to look at propaganda techniques, here are some good ones:

1)  Calling speech you disagree with "hate speech."  "Hate speech" is a truncation of the term "hateful speech"---and the truncation is significant.  Most people agree that some speech can be express hateful ideas, but until about 40 years ago the response to "hateful" speech has been more speech---i.e., engaging hateful ideas to show how and why they're unfounded; i.e. to defeat them in the marketplace of ideas.
    But in the last 40 years the Left has re-branded "hateful speech" into "Hate speech," which the Left claims must not be tolerated.  The goal is to avoid engagement instead of confronting the offending idea.  The Left labels something "hate speech" to suppress views and ideas it opposes.
    The gay-rights movement has used and popularized the term "hate speech" for over 40 years.  Other Leftist movements saw how well the tactic worked, and adopted it.

2)  Equating speech with violence.  Everyone knows that Americans have great sympathy for "the little guy"--the underdog, the victim.  And about 40 years ago we occasionally saw groups of young males physically assault gays--"gay-bashing."  This was obviously wrong, and is now virtually unheard of, but the Left saw a powerful tool, and the gay-rights movement began to refer to anyone who verbally disagreed with them of "gay-bashing."
   The tactic was a huge success for the Left, and now the substitution of a term describing physical violence for a term denoting opposition to another group's political objectives has become common.

3)  Using "-ophobia" to ridicule opponents.  A phobia is an irrational fear.  The gay movement realized that calling someone or some group "homophobic" was a great way to get readers to dismiss critics' concerns--no matter how well-founded--as the mutterings of the mentally ill.
    Ironically, Islamists have now adopted this tactic with "Islamophobia."  This is ironic because Islamists in fundamentalist-ruled countries routinely throw homosexuals off tall buildings.

4)  Claiming your group's goals are "fundamental human rights."  The Left knows that virtually all Americans support "fundamental human rights."  The question is, who gets to define what qualifies as a "fundamental human right"?  And in the U.S. the answer, as always, is whoever controls the courts.
    Voters who disagree with what judges have ruled are simply ignored.  For example, voters in many states passed laws banning same-sex marriage.  When those were overturned by state courts, voters in several states went so far as to amend their state's constitution to do the same.
    No matter: Some judge--whether state or federal--always overturned those moves, usually on "due process grounds."  Which is especially amusing since the voters followed every letter of due process.  To no avail.
    Judges piously claim we must follow the law--except of course when the law doesn't support what an individual judge wants.  Amusing.
    And of course the Left has now jumped on the "fundamental human rights" phrasing to extort ordinary people into doing as they demand.  For example, forcing bakers to bake custom cakes for a same-sex marriage.  Democrat legislatures in most states have established "human rights commissions" that use taxpayer funds to sue people who don't bow to gay- or trans demands.

5)  Equating "discrimination" with harm:  "Discrimination" is making of distinctions, and is a necessary element of day-to-day existence.  As nutty as judges are, I'm not aware that any court has ruled against "discrimination" as such.  But decades ago the courts ruled that it's illegal to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of race, religion, or national origin.
     Congress then expanded this to include sex, then to include "sexual orientation"--the judicial term for homosexual. Now Democrats have introduced a bill whose sole purpose is to give transgenders the same special protections as the previous groups.  Because they tell you that "everyone agrees" we should do that.

H/T commenter Buzzsawmonkey at PJ Media

"That's not who we are."

How much do you know about the techniques used in propaganda?

If you're like most Americans you don't know jack about it.  In fact just reading the word "propaganda" makes you automatically reject any information that follows--because "propaganda" is so last-century, eh?  It's nothing but a cold-war scare term, conspiracy-theory stuff.  

Plus, "everyone knows" that only dumb, gullible people fall for propaganda.  And that's not you, right?

You wish.  But in fact propaganda exploits well-known psychological traits that everyone has--traits like wanting to be part of the "cool kids."  Decades ago it was called "the bandwagon effect."  Today no one even knows what that means, but the psychological drive to be one of the "cool kids" is still with us.

One of the ways cunning politicians use this to get you to support their policies is to imply that "everyone" supports (or opposes) "X."  That's all it takes.  Cuz if "everyone" supports (or is opposed to) X, then since "everyone" is presumably a good American, anyone who wants to be a good American must agree that X is a great or a bad idea, depending on the pol's position.

Of course politicians are more clever than that: saying "everyone" often causes listeners to think, "Wait, how did he or she come up with that?"  So when a pol wants to get you to condemn some policy they don't like, they'll say "That's not who we are."

This is much more effective than saying "everyone condemns X," since the listener isn't moved to ask "How did he/she come up with that?"  But it's the same exact tactic.  And below are 46 examples of Democrat emperor Hussein Obama using this.  And these are just the ones they had video of!

Ask yourself:  Would he have used this so many times if it didn't work?

Look at the number of times Pelosi uses this.  Because it works.  People who consider themselves "good Americans" agree with this almost every time.