Maybe Liberal scientists aren't as credible about "climate change" for a reason!

Prestige university finds insufficient "diversity" in physics, adds courses in diversity

An overwhelming percentage of players in the NBA and NFL are black.  After studying this lopsided result for three years, a panel of top ethicists, judges and politicians have concluded that this is clearly unfair, and "discriminatory," and have devised new rules to correct this obvious, egregious wrong.

Just kidding.  Obviously no one in his right mind would believe that.  It's absurd.

On the other hand, when the brilliant administrators at Stanford discovered that their physics faculty didn't have enough "diversity"--none--and that the number of black students enrolled in physics was far below their percentage of the total student body, they determined this was unfair, unreasonable and surely the result of some nefarious factor. 

There's a rumor that several faculty members suggested it was Trump's fault.

In any case, they've come up with a fix.  Cuz they're smaht, see?  The fix was announced in the official Stanford News:

"Students from all backgrounds and identities come to Stanford excited about physics, and this interest does not strongly depend on race or gender.

Really?  How about you define "strongly," asshole.

But we lose a larger number of Black, Latinx and Native students, as well as women of all races, in the first two years of undergraduate study,” said Risa Wechsler, a professor of physics at Stanford.

To address this problem, Wechsler and six other physics faculty members formed the Equity and Inclusion Committee, which...[formulated] a strategic plan...

Hey NOW you're talkin'!   Wechsler also joined a "leadership council" that gave her grant money to devise this "strategic plan" stuff.

Grant money, y'say.  Hmmm...never would have guessed that, eh citizen?  

So what was the fix?  Ah, glad you asked:  They created a new physics course.  Well, not actually real physics, but a course that "explores issues of diversity and culture...in physics":

Physics 93SI: Beyond the Laboratory: Physics, Identity and Society is a new student-taught course that explores issues of diversity and culture in physics

So instead of teaching, oh, maybe remedial algebra or beginning physics, the brainiacs at Stanford will simply have their students "explore issues of diversity and culture."

Ah.
 
The committee also created an "optional extension course."  Ah, surely THIS is the course that gets people qualified to pass regular physics courses, right?  Well, sort of.  Actually the course is described as

"students spend spring break developing an hour-long workshop for high school students while learning and applying lessons about inclusion in science."

See, Dr. Wechsler and comrades considered adding a remedial brush-up course or two, but a faculty member pointed out that calling a course "remedial" might hurt the feelings of students who needed to enroll in it.  Since protecting the self-esteem of minorities and women is now the top priority of every "woke" university, that simply wouldn't do.

Stanford is one of the most prestigious universities in the world.  Less-prestigious schools almost always end up following the lead of schools like Stanford, Harvard or Yale.  So you can expect to see more courses teaching, NOT actual academic content, but the importance of diversity, culture and "inclusion."

In physics.

But why would anyone expect this waste to stop there?  I'll bet the percentage of, say, black cell biologists, EE majors and organic chemistry PhDs  is way below their percentage in universities, let alone their percentage of the total population.  So I guess they need the same "NEW" courses in those areas too, eh?

It's funny:  Everyone in the country would howl with derision--justifiably--if some PhD proposed to, say, install a second, larger basket on bakkaball courts that only whites could score with.  But no one says a word about the silliness of teaching "diversity and culture" to minorities taking physics.

Liberal/Democrat psychologists: "How to tell if your child is a Far-Right Extremist"!!!

If your child--almost always a male--exhibits any three of the above warning signs, he's probably planning a school shooting, or maybe plotting to blow up a federal building, so don't delay!  Call your nearest FBI office and report this grave danger!

They'll at least confiscate any guns he owns.  Or that you own, cuz he could take your guns, see?  But it's for your own protection.

And the agents will also take his computer, so they can see if he's been visiting Far-Right Hate sites, like Fox or Daily Caller or American Thinker, and to see who his co-conspirators are.  And of course they'll take your computers too, cuz we can't be sure whose computer he used.  But it's for your own protection, so it's all good.

The agents will also take your other children into "protective custody" and place them with Child Protective Services, cuz obviously it would be dangerous to let them stay exposed to the dangerous Far-Right Extremist views of your dangerous son.  But don't worry: it's only for a few months.

And it's for your own protection, see.

Also, agents will be examining your banking records to see if you've given your dangerous Far-Right son any money.  Cuz that would make you a co-conspirator, see.  But don't worry--parents are only prosecuted if they funnel large sums to their terrorist kid.  Like, if you give him money "for a car," or "college tuition."  Those large sums are red flags. 

But don't worry, it's...you get it.

So remember:  Your FBI an DHS have deemed that the greatest terror threat to Americans is from Far-Right Extremist groups!  So if you see something, SAY SOMETHING!

AOC thinks she's smart. Liz Warren claimed she was Native American. Hilarity ensues

Twatter hides something under the "sensitive material" warning that's...odd

Many of you probably don't believe Twatter is grotesquely biased to protect Democrats, socialists and their Lying Mainstream Media defenders.  After all, Twatter is supposedly open to everyone, right?

No.  Twatter's socialist munchkins routinely ban accounts that express views they don't like.  But there's also another, more subtle way to slant what you see:  They hide tweets they don't like behind a "warning box" that says "This media may contain sensitive material:" 

You can view the comment by clicking, but it's likely that lots of people--believing the material really is offensive--don't bother.

And of course the only comments Twatter's idiot leftist munchkins hide this way are ones that harm the socialist/Democrat/Mainstream Media cause.

But censoring in this way produces some laughable results:  Chris Cuomo--a.k.a. "Fredo"--is a moronic, Trump-hating CNN lackey.  After Trump tweeted a warning that hurricane Dorian might be a bad one, Fredo tweeted,

The danger in the constant dissembling... This caution on #Dorian matters but how many discount it because of how often this president misleads them? https://t.co/biaHdqasUZ

— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) August 29, 2019

If that didn't display for ya, the gist is that Fredo is claiming that because of what Fredo claims is Trump's "constant dissembling," there's a possibility that many people in the path of the storm might "discount" the warning "because of how often this president misleads them."

Yeah, right.

Twatter users understandably handed Fredo his ass for his idiocy.  But the hoot was when one commented

"This is what happens when cnn misleads its viewers:"  

But the rest of his comment was hidden behind the "may contain sensitive material" scare warning. I was curious to know what the guy had said that Twatter's munchkins deemed "sensitive material," so I clicked on it.  Turned out what Twatter didn't want viewers to see--the "sensitive material"--was the Nielson rankings of all the cable news channels, which showed CNN way down near the bottom.

"Sensitive material"?  Yeah, to people like Fredo and CNN's executives.  Which makes Twatter muchkins hide it from the rest of us.

But no bias in Twatter.  A emperor Barack said, "Not a smidgen."

An interviewer goes to an east-coast campus to ask how students would feel about...

We went to an elite east-coast university to interview college students.  Here's what happened:

Interviewer to three students:  "Suppose someone owned three homes.  Doesn't rent two of 'em but just keeps 'em for whenever he wants to stay there.  What would you think about that person?"

College student #1:  "Obviously a greedy capitalist exploiter. Why would anyone need three homes? He could live quite nicely with just one."

Student #2:  "The man--it's got to be a man, cuz women aren't greedy enough to do that sort of thing--obviously doesn't care about the poor homeless people.  If he did, he'd give away two of his homes to homeless recreational substance users."



Student #3:  "This man obviously doesn't care about his carbon footprint, which means he must be a 'climate science denier.'  He's appropriated more resources than he needs, that were acquired with fossil fuels.  So he's emitting more than his fair share of CO2.  He obviously doesn't care that he's helping to destroy the planet and end all life on Earth in just ten years!"

Interviewer:  "You DO realize that socialist Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders owns three homes, right?"

[long pause]

Student #1:  "Oh.  Well, that's different.  He's important, and important people need more things, so they can do important things."

Student #2:  "That's different.  Bernie cares about the poor and the homeless.  Not like that awful orange man who stole the presidency from our wonderful Hilliary!  If you care about the homeless, it's okay if you have more than one home."

Student #3:  "That's different.  Bernie is fine cuz he's called for all executives of fossil-fuel companies to be criminally prosecuted.  We need to do that, cuz they're killing the planet.  So it's okay if he has three homes, cuz he supports the right programs."

Interviewer:  "You all do realize none of what you just said is logical, right?  That you're just rationalizing."

Student #1:  "Do you have permission to be on our campus?  I'm calling the police!"

Student #2:  "Do you work for Fox News?  Everything you said is 'hate speech.!  I feel triggered!  I'm calling the police."

Student #3:  "You must be a tRump supporter.  A trumpkin.  You must have been sent here by your capitalist masters to hurt The Movement!  I'm calling the police!"

Water vapor versus CO2 as cause of global warming

Water vapor is a far greater contributor to the "greenhouse effect" than CO2.  Compared to water vapor, CO2 has an almost negligible effect on global warming climate change. 

But liberals can’t figure out how to tax water vapor.  Cuz, like, water vapor comes from da ocean, and they haven't found anyone willing pony up bucks for the ocean.  So they attack things that emit CO2...cuz they know they can find "defendants" with deep pockets that they can extort cash from.

Interesting:  Liberals are perfectly fine with socialist Bernie Sanders having 3 homes.  Or anti-carbon Al Gore having a 10,000-square-foot home.

Or the sainted Barack Hussein Obama buying a $14 MILLION mansion on Martha's Vinyard.

Or liberal politicians flying private jets.

Or liberal Hollywood idiots flying private jets across the ocean a dozen times a year to go to prestigious award fests in Cannes and other places.

Those things are all fine with liberals.  Cuz, they're perfectly happy with SOME people getting to emit massive amounts of CO2, while "little people"--that's you and me--fly coach and set our thermostats to uncomfortable numbers.  Cuz, fairness, comrade.

Nancy Pelosi: "You have to be ready to throw a punch...for the children"

If you're aware, you know Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat.

Democrats claim Trump is "divisive," tearing the U.S. apart.

So you might expect Nancy would be pushing sweetness and cooperation.

Hahahahahahaha!  What she's pushing is "You need to be ready to throw a punch...for the children."

Yeah, when a Democrat pushes some violent line it's always "for da chilluns."

Wait...you think I made the up?  Take a look:

Pelosi: “you have to be ready to throw a punch for the children”https://t.co/OJ3ibGXnfG pic.twitter.com/nf2MgwwVE9

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 23, 2019

If Trump--or anyone not a Democrat--had said this, the liberal media would have run top-of-the-page headlines for days about him "inciting violence," thus responsible for any violent act that occurred from that point forward.  But the media have a totally different standard for Democrats--which is, no standard at all.  No matter how strongly a Democrat pol pushes violent speech, they'll get a pass from the Lying Mainstream Media.

Joe Biden claims...uh...wait...revises history to make American look worse

Ever hear the term "revisionist history"?  It refers to people who simply lie about what really happened, to push their own agenda.

For example, liberals will claim 1,245 blacks are shot every year by raaaacist, white-supremist cops.  It's bullshit, but the speaker knows that no one will bother to check the figure.

Think I'm kidding?  Do you doubt this really happens?  Try this:  Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden says...well, take a look:

As the graphic showed, 4 people were killed at Kent State, and 9 others injured.  Obviously that's terrible.  That's not the point here.  It's that Joe either didn't know the truth, or else revised history.  Or maybe his team of campaign advisors gave him the bullshit figure.

But not a single person in his audience (of all Democrats) challenged him on the claim.

But no matter, cuz of course your wonderful, unbiased, totally objective Mainstream Media immediately caught the lie (or evidence of senility or stupidity), and reported it.

Oh wait...they didn't breathe a word to ya.  But that's because they're, like, totally unbiased.

You can definitely trust 'em.  Cuz...Mainstream Media, eh?
===

Thanks to the folks at Streamable.com for their cool free video-clip software.

9th circuit RULES Idaho must pay for a prisoner's sex-change op; Republican governor says f-off

Wanna know how totally liberal judges are destroying the United States?   Try this:

On Friday three judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that taxpayers in Idaho must pay for a sex-change operation for a prison inmate--Adree Edmo--who is serving a 10-year sentence for sexually abusing a 15-year-old boy at the age of 22. 

The idiot judges claimed that their ruling was justified by the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.

You DO know what the 8th Amendment says, right?

Wait, you don't?  Well damn.  Didn't your highschool teach y'all anything about the Bill of Rights? 

Yeah, that's what I thought.  No problem, that's what I'm here for.

The 8th bars "cruel and unusual punishment." 

Wait...you say you don't think it's "cruel" to let some dude who "sexually abused" a kid stay the "gender" he was born with?

Yeah, I agree.  But with that and $3.50 you can buy a cup of coffee.  The liberal judges make the rules, if you're a taxpayer they demand that you pay for his sex-change op.  How cool is that, eh?

To his credit, Republican Gov. Brad Little said the state would appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  "The hardworking taxpayers of Idaho should not be forced to pay for a convicted sex offender's 'gender-reassignment surgery.'"

Edmo’s lead attorney said her client “suffers every single day."

Gee, I am SO moved by that.  Wait...

The moronic judges ruled that the state of Idaho must provide gender reassignment surgery to Edmo, ruling that "officials were deliberately indifferent to Edmo's gender dysphoria, in violation of the Eighth Amendment."

A prison doctor treating Edmo rejected his request [following the demand of the NY Times the article actually substituted the craven, lying but Times-approved term "her"] for surgery, saying that method of treatment was unnecessary in her his case.
 
“Prison authorities have not provided that treatment despite full knowledge of Edmo’s ongoing and extreme suffering and medical needs,” the judges wrote. 

Extreme suffering?  God made the guy male, and that justifies taxpayers paying to change that, eh?  That's what the judges are saying.

Edmo would be reassigned to a women's prison after the procedure, as per Idaho Department of Correction policy.

In a great display of sound reasoning, Idaho’s Republican governor said his state wouldn't pay for the gender reassignment surgery.  He promised to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Leftist "comedian" gloats in hate-filled rant over death of David Koch

Wanna see where the Left is coming from?

Actually you don't, cuz it'll horrify you.

Here's the ghastly Leftist Bill Maher--a man HBO loves so much that he has his own TV show--on the death of David Koch:

Classy. @BillMaher on HBO: “Yesterday David Koch of the zillion air Koch brothers died...of prostate cancer. I guess I’m going to have to re-evaluate my low opinion of prostate cancer.” Audience: laughter. Maher: “Fuck him. The Amazon is burning up. I’m glad he’s dead” #RealTime pic.twitter.com/M9YJwW76H6

— Brent Baker (@BrentHBaker) August 24, 2019

Here's the whole transcript.  But you really need to watch the vid to see Maher's expressions.  He really hates the Kochs--and anyone who makes money in the oil or coal business:

"And now some funeral news to report:  Yesterday David Koch, of the zillionaire Koch brothers, died...of prostate cancer.  [audience laughs and applauds]

"I guess I'm going to have to re-evaluate my low opinion of prostate cancer. [audience laughs and applauds]

"He was 79, and the family said they wished it could have been longer, but at least he lived long enough to see the Amazon catch fire. [audience laughs and applauds] 

"Condolences poured in from all the politicians he owned. [audience laughs and applauds]

...and mourners are asked in lieu of flowers to just leave their car engine running.  [audience laughs and applauds]

As for his remains, he has asked to be cremated and to have his ashes blown into a child's lungs.  [audience laughs and applauds] [watch Maher's smirk at the audience's reaction to that line]

Now I know these seem like harsh jokes and I'm sure I'll be condemned for them...on Fox News, which will portray Koch as a principled libertarian who believed in the free market.  He and his brother have done more than anybody for decades to fund climate science deniers so fuck him.  [audience laughs and applauds]

The Amazon IS burning up, I'm glad he's dead and I hope the end was painful.  [audience laughs and applauds wildly]

Maher is too uninformed to know that poor Brazilian farmers burn their fields in the Amazon burn their fields every damn year to use the ash to fertilize their new crop.  This is a widespread practice in EVERY nation--including the U.S.  It also kills most weeds.

In the Amazon some poor farmers also cut down and burn trees to get more cultivated acreage.

What Maher won't tell you--because he doesn't know--is that there are fewer acres on fire this season.  Also unknown to Maher is that satellite imagery show that the total forested acrea on the planet is NOT dropping, but in fact has increased over the past 20 years.  How...unexpected.

BTW, David Koch donated over a Billion dollars to charity, much of it to cancer research.   No indication that he gave any millions to "climate science deniers," as Maher claimed.

Whoa...Maher lied?  Who could have possibly guessed, eh?

Anti-communist protesters in Hong Kong wave U.S. flag, while masked fascists in Portland...

Compare and contrast:

Antarctic ice cores prove CO2 can't possibly be causing global warming. Media: "What ice cores?"

By now you've heard or read many times that "98% of scientists agree that global warming is caused by CO2."  In addition the warmies to on to claim that the single biggest contributor to CO2 is...humans, burning carbon fuels.  And the cure they propose is the Green New Deal.

Part of the evidence that allegedly supports the notion that global warming is caused by CO2 comes from ice cores, drilled in Antarctica.  Turns out the ice--which in some places is 18,000 feet thick--holds tiny bubbles of air, which can be analyzed to find the percentage of CO2.

Further, the age of any ice core can be found by its depth--actually by counting thin layers of dust that blow onto the snow every year.  Finally, the dust contains skeletons of microscopic sea critters called diatoms, which still exist today.  By looking at their structure you can get the temperature of the ocean they lived in.  So ice cores are thought to be the most accurate tool for testing the theory.

About 20 years go Russian and French workers began drilling ice cores under Lake Vostok.  The reached down 11,000 feet or so, getting 420,000 years of data.  Sure enough, the data showed that temperature was very closely correlated to CO2.  And indeed, the first papers published claimed  temperature changes followed CO2 changes--which is what would have to be true for CO2 to cause global warming.

One little problem:  The first researchers didn't count the individual dust layers (years), but simply estimated so many years per foot.  Later researchers were more meticulous, and the result is shown below:  The green line is CO2, the blue line is temperature.  The correlation is apparent.

Unfortunately the scale is so small that it's hard to see which curve leads which.  But if you look at the data, the peaks and troughs of the green plot (CO2) actually LAG temperature changes, not lead them, by about 800 years!

You don't need a PhD to know that if changes in CO2 LAG changes in temperature, CO2 can't possibly be causing temp changes, eh?


Wait, there's more! Later the same group drilled a core down to 18,000 feet, or 800,000 years.  Again, the first workers estimated the years, and the first papers on the results said "This proves beyond doubt that CO2 causes global warming."  But as with the above data, they got it wrong: CO2 actually lagged temperature, by about 800 years.  In other words, the deeper core got exactly the same results as the one above, from a different location.  That's significant.

Note that the correlation between the two plots is obvious.  But that per this data, CO2 cannot possibly be causing global warming.  There is no way to rationaize that conclusion.

Next time some warmist screams that you need to stop driving and flying, ask them if they're familiar with the results found by the Vostok ice cores.  They'll never have heard of 'em.

If you really want to see some fun, ask a PhD at your university to explain the Vostok ice core results to ya.  Ask 'em if they knew that CO2 changes lagged temperature changes.

Three Chicago teachers vacation in Venezuela, come home praising...socialism??

Three Chicago teachers and a union organizer set up a GoFundMe account to take a trip to Venezuela. The teachers, all members of the Chicago Teachers Union, wrote public blogs and social media posts praising the socialist government of that country.  Not a word about people starving, a shortage of even basic medicine, two eggs costing a week's salary or any such disasters.

Again, the three Chitcongo teachers (and the "union organizer") said they were absolutely charmed by everything they saw.  Some of their observations:

"Wow! The media say LA is teeming with rats.  We didn't see a single rat anywhere in Venezuela!"
      Venezuelans have eaten them--all--to survive.

"The zoo was so clean.  We saw very few animals in captivity, unlike American zoos where hundreds of animals are cruelly caged for the benefit of the oppressive cisheteropatriarchy."
     Venezuelans killed the last meaty zoo animal for food two years ago.

"And the streets are so clean!  Not a food wrapper anywhere!"
     Every food wrapper was licked clean, then burned for warmth.

"The capital city, Caracas, is amazingly peaceful and quiet--no car horns, and no exhaust pollution!  The Venezuelan people obviously care about Global Warming climate change."
     No civilian can afford gasoline.  Without gas, nothing moves, there is no exhaust, etc.

"Unlike America's big cities, where gun shots are always heard, it was surprisingly peaceful & quiet."
     The socialist government took away private guns years ago.


H/T Hoofer at Weasel Zippers

California legislature--ruled by Democrats--on the verge of ruling students must take an "ethnic studies" course

California’s Democrat-ruled legislature is about to order that all highschool students must take an "ethnic studies" course to graduate.

If that strikes you as innocuous, you're naive.  In California, K-12 public school student enrollment is only 23 percent white.  And since the school system is run by Leftists, communists and other assorted Democrats, this means the "ethnic studies" course will be nothing but another semester-long anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-white, anti-free-market indoctrination course.

Skeptical?  Take a look at the “Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum.”  A good place to start is the glossary, which defines the new, "woke" vocabulary that California’s public-school students are expected to unquestioningly accept.  Some examples:

Accompliceship—the process of building relationships grounded in trust and accountability with marginalized people and groups. Being an accomplice involves attacking colonial structures and ideas by using one’s privilege and giving up power and position in solidarity with those on the social, political, religious, and economic margins of society. This is in contrast to the contested notion of allyship which is often performative, superficial, and disconnected from the anticolonial struggle.

Androcentric—the privileging and emphasis of male or masculine interests, narratives, traits, or point of view, often in spaces where power is wielded.

Can any of you think of a single example of a "space" where masculine interests are

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)—is a global social movement that currently aims to establish freedom for Palestinians living under apartheid conditions . . .

Capitalism—an economic and political system in which industry and trade are based on a “free market” and largely controlled by private companies instead of the government. Within Ethnic Studies, scholars are often very critical of the system of capitalism as research has shown that Native people and people of color are disproportionately exploited within the system.

Cisheteropatriarchy—a system of power that is based on the dominance of cisheterosexual men.

Implication:  Society would be better off if run by lesbians, or trannies.  Wonder if such a society would devote any resources to military defense?  Ah, why worry about that, citizen?  Cuz all societies are equal, which means no foreign nation would ever want to...whatever.

Classism—is the systematic oppression of subordinated class groups to advantage and strengthen the dominant class groups.

Critical race theory (CRT)—while manifesting differently, CRT is often engaged to offer a critical analysis of race and racism within a particular discipline, field, system of power, culture, etc. CRT draws on a collection of critical frameworks to better understand how race and racism are interwoven into the fabric of American society.

Cultural appropriation—the adoption of elements of a culture (i.e. clothing, jewelry, language/slang, iconography, textiles, sacred traditions, etc.) other than your own (often historically marginalized groups), without knowledge or respect for the original culture.

Gender—western culture has come to view gender as a binary concept, with two rigidly fixed options—men and women. Instead of the static binary model produced through a solely physical understanding of gender, a far richer tapestry of biology, gender expression, and gender identity intersect resulting in a multidimensional array of possibilities. Thus, gender can also be recognized as a spectrum that is inclusive of various gender identities.

Herstory—a term that describes history written from a feminist or women’s perspective. Herstory is also deployed when referring to counter narratives within history. The prefix “her” instead of “his” is used to disrupt the often androcentric nature of history.

"Disrupt," used in a positive sense, is classic communist syntax.

Hxrstory—pronounced the same as “herstory,” hxrstory is used to describe history written from a more gender inclusive perspective. The “x” is used to disrupt the often rigid gender binarist approach to telling history.

Heaven forbid anyone teaching history should categorize the players as male or female!  How archaic! 

The Four “I”s of Oppression—the four “I”s of oppression are: ideological oppression (an idea, concept, or theory whose qualities advocate for or can be interpreted as causing harm or upholding the views of a dominant group at the expense of others), institutional oppression (the belief that one group is superior than another and that the more dominant group should determine when and how those on the margins are incorporated into institutions within a society), interpersonal oppression (how oppression is played out between individuals), and internalized oppression (the internalization of the belief that one group is superior to another).

Race—a social construct created by European and American pseudo-scientists which sorts people by phenotype into global, social, and political hierarchies.

Race is a "social construct," eh?  Oh, you bet.  Communists want your kids to believe that the entire notion of "race" didn't exist until it was "created by European and American pseudo-scientists."  And notice the sly, unsupported "pseudo-".  A favorite communist tactic is to get naive students to accept a twisted definition as true, without taking the time to question it.  If that works, it's easy from there.  Convince a kid that 2+2= whatever the Party needs it to be today, and they'll believe anything.

Now:  You probably don't live in California, so you don't think the above report has any effect on you.  What you don't realize is that this is the kind of indoctrination being pushed by the "intellectual leaders" of the Democrat party.  They run the school boards, decree what students must take to graduate, approve the textbooks, have full control of hiring and firing.  If you think this bullshit "requirement" will be confined to California you're too naive to breathe.

Young American girl goes to Saudi, marries, loses custody of her child because judge says...

A 24-year-old American woman from Washington state, Bethany Vierra, moved to Saudi Arabia to teach at a university.  At some point she married a Saudi man--Muslim--and had a child.

Recently the couple divorced, and Bethany sought custody of their now 4-year-old daughter.

Last month--"unexpectedly"--a Saudi judge awarded custody of the daughter to Bethany's mother-in-law.  The judge ruled that the mother was too Westernized to raise the child according to Saudi standards. 

The judge's written opinion said Bethany "continues to definitively embrace the customs and traditions of her upbringing. We must avoid exposing [her daughter] to these customs and traditions." 

The ex-husband's attorney pushed for the ruling, accused his ex-wife of maintaining social media channels "full of...intermingling of the two sexes and a lot of things and actions contrary to our religion and customs and traditions."

Well there ya go, citizen.  Is anyone surprised by this?  Of course western feminists were outraged, and large numbers gathered to protest outside the Saudi embassy in both New York and London.

Hahahahahaha!  Just kidding--no western feminist group said a single critical word about it.  It's almost like they expected that outcome, and were okay with it.  Maybe someone should ask 'em, eh?

And did any of you readers actually believe, even for a single second, that U.S. feminists would protest anti-female, anti-mother rulings by nutso Muslim judges in Saudi Arabia?  Of course you didn't, because it never happens.  Western feminists never utter a word when Muslims run over the rights of one of their ostensible sisters.  Nevah.

Anyone else find that sort of double-standard a bit...hypocritical?  Offensive?  Just plain dumb?

Imagine how feminist groups would have howled with outrage if this same thing had happened here!  But when an Islamic court does the same thing...crickets.

Of course many Americans will doubt that the story just described actually happened.  After all, it's from a totally fake "news" source--CNN.

A modest idea to reduce the amount of vote fraud due to voting-machine malware, for 2020

Almost every precinct in the U.S. uses some type of voting machine.  Cuz, we're modern, citizen.

In the 2016 election hundreds of voters reported a very interesting phenomenon:  After they selected their choices on their voting machines, when they pushed the "OK, I'm done" button, they said the machine switched their vote for president to the Democrat candidate.

Most said they didn't have time to check whether their votes for "down-ballot" candidates were also switched to the Democrat before the machine displayed the "thank you for voting" screen.

So...it's virtually certain that we'll see that again in 2020--and probably in lots more cities.  How do we prevent it? 

You can't--at least not before the 2020 election.  Let me explain:  Obviously, voting machines are programmed and "maintained" by humans--in some cases by county election workers.  In Democrat-ruled counties, if county election workers are screwing around with the programs--or something as simple as pre-loading a few-hundred all-Democrat votes on the totalizers--they'll fight like mad to not have this ability taken away from them, and to prevent meaningful oversight by a bipartisan group of observers.

In other states the programming and maintenance of the machines is done by contractors--but the result is the same:  They'll fight like hell to keep the contract, and to bar any oversight.

Think the courts will help you prevent vote fraud by deliberate screwing around with the machines?  Uh...how well have the courts worked in the past to halt fraud?

Yeah, that's what I thought.  Moreover, in any lawsuit against state election workers or a Dem-loving contractor, a filing in federal court would quickly be bounced back to the state courts.  And in Dem-ruled states the chances of a state judge ruling for conservative plaintiffs are slim to none.

That's not to say filing suit isn't a good move, just that there's very little chance of the problem being solved before November of next year.

So here's an idea:  When you go to vote, use your cell phone to video the screen both when you select your candidates and when you "pull the trigger" to finalize your vote.  Still photos of the screen would work too, since they automatically store what time the pic was taken.  But video is better.

If you like this idea, send it to your friends and family (unless you've got siblings who are liberal moonbats).
So here's

Nine wildly-popular (?) proposals by leading Democrat presidential candidates--and their party

Virtually every one of the Democrat party's presidential candidates has signed on to the following proposals:

• "Reparations"--cash awards--for anyone who had an ancestor who was a slave;
• Erasing student loans;
• Taxpayer-funded health care for all (usually described as "free health care" or "single-payer" (a deliberately non-descriptive term); actually means government runs all health care;
• Repeal the Trump tax cuts, ostensibly because they unfairly benefitted the rich  
• Hugely increase federal gasoline tax;  
• Impose a federal tax on carbon fuels used to generate electricity (thus making electricity bills rise);
• "Green New Deal," which proposes to ban fossil fuel use in cars, and for producing electricity, and air travel for anyone but government officials;
• "De-criminalizing illegal entry into the U.S. (i.e. Open Borders)
• Free medical care for illegal aliens; (already done by state of California, i.e. taxpayers)

Gee, wonder what the total cost of all those proposals would be?  Where would the money come from to pay for any of those vastly expensive proposals?

The Lying Mainstream Media won't ask 'em--because doing so would cost the Dems votes.

Ooooh, can't have that, eh?

Did you study hard in school, get a solid degree (instead of ___-studies or "diversity theory"), get a good job and pay off any loans?  Good for ya!  Now under the Dems proposal your taxes will be used to repay student loans of the folks who got those incredible degrees in African studies, or womens' studies, or diversity theory.  But hey, it's only fair, right?

Or maybe you did well in high school but decided to be a skilled tradesman instead of going to college.  Good on ya!  A good electrician or plumber can clear well over $100K per year.  And now, under the wonderful, compassionate, FAIR proposal of the Democrats, your taxes too will be used to repay student loans for people who f'd-off in high school but were able to get student loans to pay for their degree in ____-studies.  Cuz hey, it's only fair, citizen.

Is this fun or what?  The Democrat party sees an infinite source of cash (borrowed, of course) that they can use any way they want.  And you get to pay for it!  Is this a great country or what?!

It's also interesting that outlets like Fox publish long anti-Trump pieces from Democrat "consultants" like Mary Anne Marsh, claiming that Trump is hugely unpopular, and warning that a huge recession is about to wipe out the U.S. economy!  If that happens, is it because the entire world's economy is slowing down?  "Why no, citizen, it's just a recession here in the U.S."

Bullshit.  And if there's a world-wide economic downturn, how the hell could Trump stop the entire world economy from cratering, eh?

Don't ask that question, citizen.  If it needs to be asked, the Mainstream Media will ask it.

Well, unless they're too busy praising the nine "wildly popular" Democrat proposals above. 

Protesters in Hong Kong waving American flags; U.S. Leftists burn American flags

As many of you may have seen, anti-communist protestors in Hong Kong have been waving American flags.  They understand that America stands for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and so on.

By stark contrast, American leftists often burn American flags.  Because...apparently they hate the U.S.--at least as you''ve always known it. 

No doubt some liberal "news" reporter (sarc) will ask the masked thugs of Antifa why they hate freedom of speech--but all you'd get in response is "word salad," a melange of buzzwords having no connection with reality.

Meanwhile the freedom-loving people of Hong Kong continue to wave American flags...

Palestinian Authority bans LGBT group "gathering" in Nablus; western LGBT's can't believe it

One thing about reality:  You can ignore it for awhile--sometimes years--but eventually contradictions between your fantasy views and reality will surface.  Sometimes at great cost.

Most Western LGBT'ers are big supporters of Palestinian and Muslim causes, and implacably hostile to Jews.  Anyone who keeps up with the Muslim world instantly recognizes this as irrational, since the "devout" Muslims of ISIS and Iran routinely throw gays off rooftops, or hang them from cranes.

So I wasn't at all surprised to read that after a group of Muslim LGBTs announced their plans to hold a "gathering" for its members in the city of Nablus, police of the "Palestinian Authority" said "Not only no, but hell no."  Or something like that.

Luay Zreikat, spokesperson for the PA Police, told the Jerusalem Post that activities from the organization were “harmful to the higher values and ideals of Palestinian society,” and warned that the PA cops will arrest anyone "caught in violation of the law."  He urged Palestinians to report any violation of the law they witnessed.

"But...but...but...this can't be true!  Cuz Muslims are our ALLIES against the Oppressive Straight White Patriarchy!!"

You bet, cupcake.  Keep telling yourself that.  And let us know how that works out for ya.

Say, here's a thought:  Maybe the guys in the "Palestinian Authority" aren't real Muslims!

Yeah, dat's it!

You know how you could test that theory?  Ask half a dozen people who seem to speak for Islam whether they're cool with gays.  Like maybe the absolute top mullah in Iran, and the head of CAIR in the U.S, and the head of the wahhabi sect, and the head of the Sunnis, and the Shia..

Hey, let us know what they say, eh?  

Unbelievable: NYTimes launches campaign to totally villify the Founders, and the U.S.

When most Americans think of why and how the United States was founded, they probably think of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.

It probably won't surprise many of you to learn that the New York Times wants to change that.  The leftist assholes at the Times want you to believe the country was actually founded in 1619, when the first Africans were brought to Virginia, to be sold as slaves.  And to believe our nation was founded on racism.

To do this the Times has created what they call the 1619 Project.  Right now that link shows you a series of essays.  The first starts "Our democracy's founding ideals were false when they were written."  The next starts, "...to understand the brutality of American capitalism you have to start on the plantation."  And it goes downhill from there.

Next is "America holds on to the undemocratic assumption from its founding that some people deserve more power than others."  Really?  Is that why you have morons in congress?  Is that why we elected a half-black president whose only known real job (no, editor of Hahvahd Law Review was an AA hire) was "community organizer"?  What utter nonsense.

Next: "Why doesn't the United States have universal health care?  The answer begins with policies enacted after the Civil War."  No, cupcake, the answer is that until you f'n marxissts and dumb-ass Democrats realized you could bribe idiots to vote for you by promising 'em free shit (which is how the marxists in Europe did the same thing), it never occurred to the Founders that anyone was responsible for anyone else's outcomes.  Voluntary help?  Sure.  But by taxes taken by law (i.e. at threat of jail time for anyone who refuses to pay)?  No way.  The Founders beleived in individual effort, and freedom.  You Democrats don't.  Simple.

I won't bother listing the rest, though you should probably click the link (repeated here) to verify that I'm not making this shit up.  The people at the Times want to help Democrats rule, which will unavoidably destroy this country, at least as a viable entity.  Which is what the marxists want.

UPDATE:  Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris swooned over this anti-American fantasy.

We must speak this truth: the very foundation of our country was built on the backs of enslaved people.

The #1619Project—in print today in the Sunday @nytimes—is a masterpiece from @nhannahjones and her colleagues at @NYTmag. pic.twitter.com/cBsSN69rb3

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) August 18, 2019

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.

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.

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 values...is actively siding with people who want to destroy this country as we've known it...you'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 carterheavyindustries@gmail.com.

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 "carterheavyindustries@gmail.com"  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. 

McMillian told Congress that the Carter Heavy Industries email address in the Clinton-email metadata was set up to receive a copy of every email sent and received as they were sent, even if the intended addressee was different. pic.twitter.com/ccmUhnH31I

— Ivan Pentchoukov (@IvanPentchoukov) August 15, 2019

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:

Why did the dummy account appear in 2009 before Combetta was hired? pic.twitter.com/eEREbdPcCo

— Rosie memos (@almostjingo) August 15, 2019

Dear @TheJusticeDept @JusticeOIG @ChuckGrassley @ODNIgov
Combetta was not hired until 2013 the carterheavyindustries@gmail account first appeared in 2009, the @FBI’s excuse that he created the account is null and void, in fact it’s a lie. pic.twitter.com/e7oOPvGwMu

— Rosie memos (@almostjingo) August 15, 2019

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 carterheavyindustries@gmail.com account was created until after she was out of office, but in 2014 her IT guy uploaded the entire archive from clintonemail.com 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 carterheavyindustries@gmail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com mail server was running Microsoft Exchange 2010 with the webmail login wide open to anyone who browsed to mail.clintonemail.com. 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!"

Update on Epstein

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

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-thirty-years-of-climate-hysterics-being-proven-wrong-over-and-over-again

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.

These items were found during a #weaponSweep near #MackworthHouse #AugustasSt during #OpSceptre . Safely disposed and taken off the streets pic.twitter.com/53HdeqMKu1

— Regents Park Police (@MPSRegentsPark) March 16, 2018

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

pic.twitter.com/DEbTGC9ueS

— Dirk Willden (@DirkDaknife) April 12, 2018

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.

The first tweet that "ignited controversy" was this:

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?

Wait...you 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.  Wait...you 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.