"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams
Monday, October 21, 2019
Hillary Clinton — the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long — finally came out from behind the curtain yesterday, accusing me of being a Russian asset, asserting I was being “groomed” by Russian interests.
Thus saith Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Finally a Democrat who tells the truth!
Monday, September 30, 2019
Why has Michael Bloomberg become an apologist for the Communist Party of China? Could he possible believe the things he is saying? For example: “The Communist Party wants to stay in power in China and they listen to the public. When the public says ‘I can’t breathe the air,’ Xi Jinping is not a dictator, he has to satisfy his constituents or he’s not going to survive.”
He was then asked, “He’s not a dictator?” to which he responded, “No, he has a constituency to answer to.” The interviewer counted with, “He doesn’t have a vote. He doesn’t have a democracy. He’s not held accountable by voters. Is the check on him just a revolution?” to which Bloomberg answered, “You’re not going to have a revolution. No government survives without the will of the majority of its people, okay?” Bloomberg then suggested that if the US would lead on climate change, the Chinese people “can go to the government and say, ‘if America can do it, why can’t we do it?'”
The interviewer pressed Bloomberg on the idea that the CPC is responsive to the people of China, saying, “the idea that the Chinese government is responsive to sort of a Democratic expression of fresh air, clean air … ” Bloomberg then interrupted saying, “Oh, come on, of course they are.” The interviewer then said, “I’m looking at the people in Hong Kong who are protesting…” when Bloomberg, ignoring the crackdown on the protesters, said, “Go back and read the press, the days when you have big pollution in Beijing and they’re doing something about it.”
Thursday, September 19, 2019
By pushing to hard and too fast, the left has now exposed their two primary tactics (for all who have eyes to see). The first is the Hitlerian model: If you tell a lie often enough, eventually people will believe it." The unspoken corollary is that they will not believe it because of any evidentiary support; they will believe it only because they have heard it so often. The left uses this tactic when the accusation cannot be disproved. Examples are: "Trump's a racist," "Trump's a white supremacist," and "The death of the Republican Party is near." Over the past three months I have heard these assertions numerous times in the mainstream media.
The left uses the second tactic when they wish to create a negative impression of a person, but there are facts that could potentially disprove or discredit the specific assertion. This is where they make an outlandish, unsupportable allegation, and the next day, in the midst of the blow back, apologize. This tactic has the effect of getting the wild accusation into the news for all to hear, but allows the accuser to exonerate himself by means of his "heart-felt apology." Examples are: Larry O’Donnell, “Trump had Russian billionaires as co-signers.” “Oops, sorry. Shouldn’t have said that.” Kim Campbell, “I hope the hurricane hits Mar-a-Lago” “Oops, sorry. Was just joking. Shouldn’t have said that.” And the latest and most egregious example of this tactic: the New York Times' attempt to once again smear Justice Brett Kavanaugh: "Oops, sorry. Yes, we did leave out many of the pertinent facts." Clearly the NYT is no longer a reporter of the news but a driver of the leftist agenda.
Because of their frequency and the number of their practitioners, there is no longer any doubt that these dishonest, deceitful, and disingenuous tactics are being deliberately employed in an attempt to poison the minds of the American public prior to the next election.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Agreement on SCOTUS decisions by justices appointed by the same president:
Bush II -- Roberts and Alito agree in 90% of decisions.
Obama -- Sotomayor and Kagan agree in 96% of decisions.
Trump -- Gorsuch and Kavanaugh agree on 70% of decisions.
So much for monolithic, politics-driven, conservative judges. Turns out it's the other way around. It's the liberals who walk in lock-step.
Thursday, September 5, 2019
In the United States, there has been no increase in flood magnitudes in any region since the 1920s, and no nationwide increase in drought since 1900 as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index. There has been no trend since 1900 in the strength or frequency of U.S. land-falling hurricanes, and none in hurricane-related damages once losses are adjusted for increases in population, wealth, and the consumer price index.
Globally, the total area burned by wildfires has decreased every decade since the 1940s, and NASA reports that the number of square kilometers burned fell by about 25 percent between 2003 and 2019. In addition, all major indicators of human health and well-being such as life expectancy, per capita income, and crop yields have improved dramatically during the era of global warming.
Finally, whatever effects global warming may be having on the weather since the 1920s, the individual risk of dying from extreme weather globally has decreased by 99 percent, and since 1990, the relative economic impact of extreme weather (measured as a percent of global GDP) has declined. Where is the real-world evidence that climate change is a crisis?
The recent National Climate Assessment claimed that global warming could reach 14°F and lop 10% off US GDP by century’s end. However, to get that alarming result, the assessment ran an ensemble of models that on average project twice as much warming over the past 40 years as actually occurred. Worse, the modelers used an inflated emissions scenario in which coal scales up rapidly to provide nearly half of all global energy by 2100 – a percentage not seen since 1940.
Even with that biased combo, warming hits 14°F in only 1% of model projections – a detail the assessment failed to mention. Clearly, the National Climate Assessment needs to be fixed.
Monday, August 19, 2019
As of today, President Trump has successfully stripped Planned Parenthood of federal funding. When the worthless RINOs in Congress refused to take a stand against baby killing, the president did. And he gets all the credit.
NPR reports: "The Trump administration has forced Planned Parenthood grantees out of Title X," said Alexis McGill Johnson, Planned Parenthood's acting president, in a conference call Monday. "The impact of the Trump administration's gag rule will reverberate across the country." Officials say that means patients are likely to see longer wait times or increased costs for reproductive health services.
The correct translation of that last sentence would be: "Patients are likely to see longer wait times or increased costs for killing their unborn babies." That's a good thing. Thank you President Trump.
Thursday, August 8, 2019
Last weekend in El Paso a man killed 20 people, and a man in Dayton killed 9. The selection of which individuals to kill was apparently random, except that the man in Dayton killed his sister, which seems suspicious to me. The killings in El Paso took several minutes while the ones in Dayton took less than one minute (which was how long it took the cops to get there and take the dirtbag out). Both men killed their victims with bullets, which they fired from legally obtained firearms.
Yesterday a man in Southern California went on a wild, angry rampage and killed 4 people. His selection of who to kill seems to have been entirely random, and his killing spree lasted for two hours. This man killed his victims with a knife.
Now here is my question: What is the threshold through which a mass killing must pass to become worthy of national attention, flags at half mast, and a presidential visit? Is it the number of people killed, and if so, what would that number be? Recent events indicate it would be somewhere between 4 and 9. Or, does it have to do with how long it took to perpetrate the killings? I suppose that if it takes the killer two hours to get the job done, that's too long to qualify. But what if it had taken him only one hour, or 30 minutes, or 10 minutes? It seems to me that the number of people killed and the length of time it took to kill them are both too arbitrary. If it were 8 people, would it qualify, but not if it were only 7? Why would one more death make a difference? Or, does it actually come down to the type of weapon used? When it's a gun, the outcry is to ban guns, or at least pass laws that would keep guns out of the hands of potential killers (not sure how that would work). Yet when a knife is used, there is no outcry to ban or limit the sale of knives. (According to the FBI, 1604 people were murdered in the US in 2016 with a knife or other cutting instrument.)
Maybe to qualify the killer must have some sort of political motivation; yet when James Hodgkinson opened fire on a group of Republican congressmen, there was no outcry. His political motivation was clear, whereas the motives in El Paso and Dayton are vague at best. Their online ramblings seem to indicate they were both of a Leftist persuasion. The guy in California seems to have just been angry-about what we don't yet know. He was also Hispanic as were all his victims. For some reason the crime becomes more egregious when the killer is a white guy and at least some of his victims are people of color.
This past weekend also registered the 200th murder in Baltimore this year. These have mostly been blacks killing blacks, which explains why there has been no outcry that something be done. Yet why are 200 murders over a period of 7 months any less a mass slaying worthy of national attention than 9 murders in one minute? Could it be because genocide of the black community is part and parcel of the Leftist agenda, as Planned Parenthood demonstrates on a daily basis? Just asking.
I say all this to in order to bore down to the real issue. The outcry we have heard over the past few days has had nothing to do with the number of people killed or how long it took to kill them or what weapon was used to perpetrate the evil deed or what the killers motivations were. It has to do with one thing and one thing only: pointing a disingenuous finger at President Donald J. Trump!
Saturday, June 8, 2019
"We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." CNN's Don Lemon
"I will be leading a great movement to prohibit straight white males, who I believe supported Donald Trump by about 85 percent, from exercising the franchise (to vote), and I think that will save our democracy." Steven Clifford, former CEO King Broadcasting
OK, let me get this straight: no more demonizing, instead we'll just accuse white males of being the biggest threat to America (isn't that demonizing?), and we'll save our democracy by depriving about 80,000,000 citizens of their right to vote (wouldn't that destroy democracy?). OK, got it. Yep, that makes a lot of sense.
Friday, March 29, 2019
I'm concerned about the implications of Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx’s words as reported on the Fox News website:
Foxx didn’t directly answer the question when CBS 2 TV in Chicago asked if she believed Smollett was innocent, as Smollett has continued to contend, saying only that the matter was handled properly. She pointed to Smollett forfeiting his $10,000 bond and doing community service in return for dropping the charges. “I believe that the outcome — him having to forfeit the $10,000, having to do community service, based on the allegations, and again the (low level) felony and no (criminal) background, are an outcome that we could expect with this type of case,” she said.
OK, what do we have here? A man is charged with a crime, he maintains his innocent, and he has not yet been convicted of anything in a court of law. Yet Ms. Foxx asserts that the “outcome” (as she calls it) is what we “could expect in this type of case.” In other words, we could expect that by paying a $10,000.00 fee and doing community service (whatever that was), this man (and I use the term loosely) is able to make the “allegation” of a felony go away. This sounds like a payoff to me. I mean, if there is no longer even an allegation of criminal conduct, much less a conviction, why should he have to pay one thin dime? And how did he happen to be doing community service before he was convicted of anything? That seems highly unusual and inappropriate to me. What kind of a judicial system is this? Where is due process? Where is the presentation of evidence and a commensurate defense? Ms. Foxx seems to have appointed herself judge and jury. Seems to me she's acting like a tin pot dictator with extra-judicial powers. This whole slimy episode needs to be investigated by the DoJ.
I wonder if Jussie should sue Cook County to get his money back on the basis that he was never convicted of committing a crime.