Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 27, 2016, 03:31:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96693 Posts in 2320 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 277
1  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: POTH goes after the Donald on race on: Today at 02:10:19 PM

Whitewashing the Democratic Party’s History

 by Mona Charen June 26, 2015 12:00 AM @monachareneppc

The less racist the South gets, the more Republican it becomes. Here’s what the former president of the United States had to say when he eulogized his mentor, an Arkansas senator: We come to celebrate and give thanks for the remarkable life of J. William Fulbright, a life that changed our country and our world forever and for the better. . . . In the work he did, the words he spoke and the life he lived, Bill Fulbright stood against the 20th century’s most destructive forces and fought to advance its brightest hopes. So spoke President William J. Clinton in 1995 of a man was among the 99 Democrats in Congress to sign the “Southern Manifesto” in 1956. (Two Republicans also signed it.) The Southern Manifesto declared the signatories’ opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and their commitment to segregation forever. Fulbright was also among those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That filibuster continued for 83 days. Speaking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, let’s review (since they don’t teach this in schools): The percentage of House Democrats who supported the legislation? 61 percent. House Republicans? 80 percent. In the Senate, 69 percent of Democrats voted yes, compared with 82 percent of Republicans. (Barry Goldwater, a supporter of the NAACP, voted no because he thought it was unconstitutional.) When he was running for president in 2000, Vice President Al Gore told the NAACP that his father, Senator Al Gore Sr., had lost his Senate seat because he voted for the Civil Rights Act. Uplifting story — except it’s false. Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act. He lost in 1970 in a race that focused on prayer in public schools, the Vietnam War, and the Supreme Court. Al Gore’s reframing of the relevant history is the story of the Democratic party in microcosm. The party’s history is pockmarked with racism and terror. The Democrats were the party of slavery, black codes, Jim Crow, and that miserable terrorist excrescence, the Ku Klux Klan. Republicans were the party of Lincoln, Reconstruction, anti-lynching laws, and the civil rights acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1964. Were all Republicans models of rectitude on racial matters? Hardly. Were they a heck of a lot better than the Democrats? Without question. As recently as 2010, the Senate’s president pro tempore was former Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.). Rather than acknowledge their sorry history, modern Democrats have rewritten it. The Democrats have been sedulously rewriting history for decades. You may recall that when MSNBC was commemorating the 50th anniversary of segregationist George Wallace’s “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” stunt to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama, the network identified Wallace as “R., Alabama.” The Democrats have been sedulously rewriting history for decades. Their preferred version pretends that all the Democratic racists and segregationists left their party and became Republicans starting in the 1960s. How convenient. If it were true that the South began to turn Republican due to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of the Civil Rights Act, you would expect that the Deep South, the states most associated with racism, would have been the first to move. That’s not what happened. The first southern states to trend Republican were on the periphery: North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. (George Wallace lost these voters in his 1968 bid.) The voters who first migrated to the Republican party were suburban, prosperous New South types. The more Republican the South has become, the less racist. Is it unforgivable that Bill Clinton praised a former segregationist? No. Fulbright renounced his racist past, as did Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. It would be immoral and unjust to misrepresent the history. What is unforgivable is the way Democrats are still using race to foment hatred. Remember what happened to Trent Lott when he uttered a few dumb words about former segregationist Strom Thurmond? He didn’t get the kind of pass Bill Clinton did when praising Fulbright. Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton told a mostly black audience that “what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and young people from one end of our country to another. . . . Today Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting.” She was presumably referring to voter-ID laws, which, by the way, 51 percent of black Americans support. Racism has an ugly past in the Democratic party. The accusation of racism has an ugly present. — Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. © 2015

Read more at:
2  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Embarrassing: WashPost Writes Clinton 'Allegedly Cheated on His Wife' on: August 26, 2016, 06:20:29 PM

Memory hole.
3  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ever smoke so much weed, you forgot you were supposed to be a Libertarian? on: August 26, 2016, 05:28:47 PM

Dazed and confused.
4  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Dr Drew on: August 26, 2016, 04:57:29 PM

I am sure they'll go after his medical license before long.
5  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / In case you were wondering why we can't win wars anymore... on: August 26, 2016, 04:55:59 PM
This is where "lawfare" is leading us.  rolleyes

I'm sure our "legal model advocates" here would require that any alleged insurgent our military might want to engage would be required to be served with a legal notice for a hearing to determine if the person is indeed a combatant and can be shot as such on the field of battle. This of course would require an independant judiciary, legal representation and translators to ensure due process.

How Anti-Soldier Lawyers Banned a Kind of Ambush
41 Replies   
(File photo of Navy Recon Doc Michael Conti firing a sniper rifle in training).

(File photo of Navy Recon Doc Michael Conti firing a sniper rifle in training).

Two men from the IED cell padded silently down the road. Abdul and Roshanullah had two 107mm rocket warheads, a cell-phone detonator, and detailed instructions, including a sketch map of their emplacement point. The rest of their cell waited for them to return.

At a point where the road crossed a filled area, the two HIG men — many Afghans changed allegiances more frequently than their shalwar kameez, but once you were Gulbuddin Hekmatayar’s man, you were always Gulbuddin’s man — slipped down the side of the fill to the mouth of the culvert. This one hadn’t been fitted with a grating yet, but even if it had, they had been prepared.

There was just enough starlight for Abdul to see Roshan’s grin. This was going to be easy! First, the blessing: “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem,” In the Name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful…

High on a hill facing the culvert, nearly half a mile away, a sniper team leader whispered, “Send ’em.”

The wind was fortuitously towards the hill, and at the culvert, all that there was to hear was the thwack of bullet impacts. Then one of the men — Roshanullah, not grinning any more — groaned and moved.


All was still.

An hour before sunrise it was visibly getting light in the valley, and the five armed men who came down the road moved from cover to cover, nervously. They were breaking every tactical rule that had kept them alive this long, but their leader wanted to lay his own eyes and hands on the IED team.

They all died within the span of one and a half seconds. With five targets, both snipers, the spotters, and the team leader had all taken one. That was breaking a tactical rule too, but the difference was, the rulebreaking worked for the ISAF snipers. They recovered their 360º observation as soon as the shots were sent, also.

The team met the road clearance unit for a ride into the FOB. Intelligence collected from the dead laid bare the workings of the cell, and the telephone carried by the deceased IED cell leader allowed the Afghan NDS to identify two key HIG facilitators; one fled to Peshawar and the protection of ISI, but the other was reputed to be singing like a canary.

It was a successful operation until the Staff Judge Advocate spoke up, taking, as usual, the side of the enemy, and demanded the snipers be charged with war crimes — for shooting armed unlawful combatants carrying out combat operations!

Believe it or not, Army lawyers have defined this tactic as a “baited ambush” and have worked hard, if not to make it a “war crime,” at least to create a grey area in which it is the slightly less felonious “violation of the laws of war” and possibly a “war crime.” Lawyers, of course, love grey areas which take decisions out of the hands of decision-makers and deliver them, instead, to the captivity of cabals of, what else, lawyers.

For example, Army judge advocate LTC Chris Jenks — clearly, from his writing, the sort of SJA who joined the Army for personal gain, hostile to the guys with guns who make up the actual Army part of the Army — wrote in The Army Lawyer1 that this tactic “comes close to, if not enters, the law of war violation continuum….”2

Certainly this is an example of why it is impossible to win a war without first staking out the enemy’s fifth columnists, to wit, about 95% of SJAs, on culverts like the ones in our hypothetical, and letting the enemy have their way with them.

Jenks also doesn’t think the troops should enjoy a victory:

    Members of the unit filmed the artillery strike and can be heard laughing and cheering, which presents additional challenges to a command.3

One gets the impression that his spectator sport is golf or tennis, not football or hockey. And he grew up in the age of scoreless soccer, and participation trophies.

Jenks makes a few clumsy gropes in the direction of understanding military necessity, a concept he, not surprisingly, has not picked up by osmosis merely by donning a bestowed uniform bearing an unearned rank. But he still concludes that hunting over bait is outside of the fish and game regulations of scoreless-soccer SJA war:

    Ultimately, in the absence of an armistice or suspension of fire, engaging combatants attempting to recover their dead and wounded is not a per se violation of the law of war, but utilizing known—or even suspected—enemy wounded and dead as “bait” for such targeting enters the continuum and, at some point, will constitute a violation of article 15.

(The reference is to Article 15 of the First Geneva Convention of 1949). Jenks continues:

    The more time that passes following the engagement, the closer the engagement is to U.S. forces, and the more control U.S. forces have over the “field of battle,” the more likely the failure to search for enemy wounded and dead becomes to violating the Geneva Convention.4

We bet we can guess what Scoreless Chris Jenks thinks about whether pirates should be held hostis humanae generis or treated with kid gloves in Article 3 courts, just based on the way he reasons himself into coming down on the side of our hypothetical decedents Abdul and Roshanullah here.

Army lawyers are entertaining, if you don’t have to operate like Combat Houdini, kicking off every patrol with their manacles and straitjacket on you.

Jenks, Chris “LTC”. The Law and Policy Implications of “Baited Ambushes” Utilizing Enemy Dead and Wounded. The Army Lawyer, June 2010. DA PAM 27-50-445. pp. 91-94.

    The Army Lawyer is a monthly magazine in which the judge advocate fifth column coordinates their attacks on combat troops.
    Jenks, p. 91 fn 1.
    Jenks, p. 93.

6  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: August 26, 2016, 04:15:02 PM
Donald Trump took any hope of beating the Crooked Hillary machine out onto 5th Ave. and shot it in the head.

Hillary is the next president. Plan accordingly.
7  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Diversity: History's Pathway to Chaos on: August 26, 2016, 09:43:03 AM

Diversity: History's Pathway to Chaos
Victor Davis Hanson

Posted: Aug 25, 2016 12:01 AM

Emphasizing diversity has been the pitfall, not the strength, of nations throughout history.

The Roman Empire worked as long as Iberians, Greeks, Jews, Gauls and myriad other African, Asian and European communities spoke Latin, cherished habeas corpus and saw being Roman as preferable to identifying with their own particular tribe. By the fifth century, diversity had won out but would soon prove a fatal liability.

Rome disintegrated when it became unable to assimilate new influxes of northern European tribes. Newcomers had no intention of giving up their Gothic, Hunnish or Vandal identities.

The propaganda of history's multicultural empires -- the Ottoman, the Russian, the Austro-Hungarian, the British and the Soviet -- was never the strength of their diversity. To avoid chaos, their governments bragged about the religious, ideological or royal advantages of unity, not diversity.

Nor did more modern quagmires like Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Rwanda or Yugoslavia boast that they were "diverse." Instead, their strongman leaders naturally claimed that they shared an all-encompassing commonality.

When such coerced harmony failed, these nations suffered the even worse consequences of diversity, as tribes and sects turned murderously upon each other.

For some reason, contemporary America believes that it can reject its uniquely successful melting pot to embrace a historically dangerous and discredited salad-bowl separatism.

Is there any evidence from the past that institutionalizing sects and ethnic grievances would ensure a nation's security, prosperity and freedom?
CARTOONS | Steve Breen
View Cartoon

America's melting pot is history's sole exception of E pluribus unum inclusivity: a successful multiracial society bound by a common culture, language and values. But this is a historic aberration with a future that is now in doubt.

Some students attending California's Claremont College openly demand roommates of the same race. Racially segregated "safe spaces" are fixtures on college campuses.

We speak casually of bloc voting on the basis of skin color -- as if a lockstep Asian, Latino, black or white vote is a good thing.

We are reverting to the nihilism of the old Confederacy. The South's "one-drop rule" has often been copied to assure employers or universities that one qualifies as a minority.

Some public figures have sought to play up or invent diversity advantages. Sometimes, as in the cases of Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal and Ward Churchill, the result is farce.

Given our racial fixations, we may soon have to undergo computer scans of our skin colors to rank competing claims of grievance.

How does one mete out the relative reparations for various atrocities of the past, such as slavery, the Holocaust, the American Indian wars, the Asian or Catholic exclusion laws, indentured servitude, or the mid-18th-century belief that the Irish were not quite human?

Sanctuary cities, in the manner of 1850s Richmond or Charleston invoking nullification, now openly declare themselves immune from federal law. Does that defiance ensure every city the right to ignore whatever federal laws it finds inconvenient, from the filing of 1040s to voting laws?

The diversity industry hinges on U.S. citizens still envisioning a shrinking white population as the "majority." Yet "white" is now not always easily definable, given intermarriage and constructed identities.

In California, those who check "white" on Orwellian racial boxes are now a minority. Will white Californians soon nightmarishly declare themselves aggrieved minorities and thus demand affirmative action, encourage Viking-like names such as Ragnar or Odin, insert umlauts and diereses into their names to hype their European bona fides, seek segregated European-American dorms and set up "Caucasian Studies" programs at universities?

Women now graduate from college at a higher rate than men. Will there be a male effort to ensure affirmative action for college admissions and graduation rates?

If the white vote reaches 70 percent for a particular candidate, is that really such a good thing, as it was considered to be when President Obama was praised for capturing 95 percent of the black vote?

It is time to step back from the apartheid brink.

Even onetime diversity advocate Oprah Winfrey has had second thoughts about the lack of commonality in America. She recently vowed to quit using the word "diversity" and now prefers "inclusion."

A Latino-American undergraduate who is a student of Shakespeare is not "culturally appropriating" anyone's white-European legacy, but instead seeking transcendence of ideas and a common humanity.

Asian-Americans are not "overrepresented" at premier campuses. Their high-profile presence should be praised as a model, not punished as aberrant by number-crunching bureaucrats.

African-Americans who excel in physics and engineering are not "acting white" but finding the proper pathways for their natural talents.

Being one-half Southeast Asian or three-quarters white is not the touchstone to one's essence and is irrelevant to one's character and conduct.

No one is impinging on anyone's culture when blacks dye their hair blond, or when blondes prefer to wear cornrow braids.

Campuses desperately need unity czars, not diversity czars.

Otherwise, we will end up as 50 separate and rival nations -- just like other failed states in history whose diverse tribes and races destroyed themselves in a Hobbesian dog-eat-dog war with one another.
8  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Update your Iphone NOW! on: August 25, 2016, 09:14:28 PM
9  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Pravdas: Soros who? on: August 25, 2016, 06:22:23 PM
But Crafty, they are professional journalists! With credentials!

10  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: August 25, 2016, 05:35:15 PM
Make no mistake, straight white males are being vilified in the US now like Jews and Gypsies were in 1930's Europe. Why? Draw your own conclusions.

"I also said then he wasn't going to deport anyone, just send the known criminals first and never get to the rest.  First he had to scare everyone and drive up his own negatives."

Yes you did Doug.  You were right all along.  He will go back to being a billionaire and the rest of us will be living under totalitarian rule under the IRON thumb of the Democrat mobsters who are hell bent on giving our country away for power.   And I will be continuously vilified because I make over 100 K a year, for being white, for being a man, and for being someone who loves America.   Shame on me. 
11  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nothing on Trump's illegal immigration flip flop at on: August 25, 2016, 04:17:30 PM
Just checked over at

Nothing on Trump's flip flop. It's like it never happened.
Waiting for Pat's outrage.
I doubt anyone here has posted that Trump is evil incarnate. If they did, I missed it. Trump may well win. Prepare yourself for when he fcuks us over to make his "deals".

Right.  Trump takes the Rubio electability position after thoroughly trashing it.  I also said then he wasn't going to deport anyone, just send the known criminals first and never get to the rest.  First he had to scare everyone and drive up his own negatives.

Say one thing in the primaries and another in the general election.  A different sort of politician...(?)
12  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Red Teaming the Rebalance on: August 25, 2016, 12:44:33 PM

The Seward segment was worthwhile. The fact that China has checkmated us and Obama deliberate sabotage of power is ignored.
13  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ann Coulter feeling betrayed by the Trump flip flop on: August 25, 2016, 12:24:34 PM

14  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The insider threat on: August 24, 2016, 11:28:33 PM

15  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / He just handed the election to the felon on: August 24, 2016, 08:33:15 PM

Has Trump Blown the Immigration Issue?

Through the primary season, illegal immigration was Donald Trump’s signature issue. He loudly promised to deport the millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S., and build a high wall that would keep out future unlawful entrants. I don’t think there is much doubt that it was Trump’s seemingly strong position on immigration that propelled him to the front of the Republican race.

But recently, Trump has softened his comments on illegal immigration, even backing off of his pledge to deport the illegals who are already here. Byron York thinks Trump has made a mess of the issue:

    What is the status of his old proposal to deport all immigrants who are in the United States illegally? After days of Trump and his senior advisers talking about it, the answer is entirely unclear.
    Trump has held many, many rallies in which he talked about building the wall — he’s talked about it so much that it is now a call-and-response with some audiences. But at the same events he said nothing about deportations.
    His new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, has said Trump’s position on deportations is to be determined. Trump himself has said things that appear to be hardline and things that appear much softer. The problem will not be resolved until Trump lays out, in some systematic way, where he stands on the question and explains in turn where that position fits into his larger immigration policy.

Part of the problem is that Trump has always been a squish on immigration, if you took his proposals seriously. Sure, he said he would deport the current generation of illegals. But remember that his high wall had a “huge door” in it. All those deported illegals who were “good” would promptly be re-admitted to the U.S. In practice, there is no possible definition of a “good” illegal immigrant other than one who has not been convicted of a felony. That means that if you took Trump’s proposal seriously, his much-feared mass deportation of illegals would amount to almost nothing, since virtually all of them would promptly be let back in–this time legally!

Presumably this wasn’t what Trump’s supporters had in mind, but it is what Trump put on his web site. One of our frequent email correspondents made the point in language less delicate than Byron’s, commenting on this InstaPundit post where Trump said he would only deport the “bad” illegal immigrants:

    Trump struck a starkly different tone during an interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News that aired on Monday night. Trump said he would separate the country’s undocumented immigrants into two groups: The “bad ones” who would be kicked out of the country as soon as he takes office and “everybody else” who would go through the same process that the Obama Administration is currently using.

Our correspondent writes:

    OH?? “enforce our laws”? Against the employers? Not bloody likely.

    And this is perfect for O’Falafal, too. See, the problem is that they’re not LEEEEE-gal, that’s all. LEEEE-gal immigrants are good because they do the JAWD/JAAND for the employers — like the white farmers, ranchers, homebuilders, America’s Dairymen, contractors, small businessmen, restaurateurs, EWIC —- not like the illegal aliens who are rapists, but with some “good” “productive” people, too, though they don’t work and get welfare while they take “our” jobs. We’ll “deport” them for 10 minutes in the old “touchback” fraud sponsored by Trump’s running mate, but then they’ll come right back in! Through the “big beautiful gate” in the fraudulent wall. And then, comrade, they will be LEEEE-gal. Presto-change-o they’re now good, “productive” LEEEE-gal immigrants, just like that! That’s the magic of being LEEEE-gal which everyone is for.

    Think this is what the Trumpen-proletariat has in mind? Universal amnesty, conditional on not being a rapist? Oh, and, of course, once they are LEEEE-gal they are “permanent lawful residents” and eligible for all public benefits! When they don’t work while getting welfare and simultaneously taking our jobs that will then be LEEEE-gal!

    Hilarious…and you heard it here first.

    There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference —- even on immigration! —– objectively, between Trump and Hillary. It’s the usual contest to stand on a dime in the middle of the 50 yard line.

    The answer to the question? What happens next is the unconditional “pathway to citizenship” obviously implied by all but unconditional amnesty…and we don’t need no stinkin’ back taxes either.

Is our correspondent correct when he says there is now little difference between Trump’s position and Hillary’s on illegal immigration? (Note, as always, that the bigger problem is legal immigration, which only Trump has made an issue, but not consistently or clearly enough.) On paper, he can make a good case. But my guess is that both Trump’s supporters and Hillary’s will continue to believe that their candidates are far apart on the issue, and they probably are right. I think that as president, Hillary would essentially waive our immigration laws for the next four years, hoping to establish as many millions of non-Americans as possible as permanent residents (either de jure or de facto), while Trump would make a reasonably good faith effort to enforce our laws.

If that is right, immigration can continue to be a rallying point for the Trump campaign. Still, he has come down a long way from the rhetorical flights of last Fall, and some of his supporters will notice.
16  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Patriot Post: The Clinton Crime Syndicate (Good Summary) on: August 24, 2016, 06:56:02 PM

Sadly, she will be the next president.
17  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nothing on Trump's illegal immigration flip flop at on: August 24, 2016, 04:06:19 PM

Waiting for Pat's outrage.

I doubt anyone here has posted that Trump is evil incarnate. If they did, I missed it. Trump may well win. Prepare yourself for when he fcuks us over to make his "deals".

Since I quit posting here, I have been lurking, reading the posts on the election and the candidates. Several times I have almost posted, but realized that I would once again subject myself to negative articles about Trump promoting media and political talking points that have taken Trump’s words out of  context, his history having been distorted, and rants that Trump is evil incarnate. I can go anywhere for that.

Since blew themselves up by going over Facebook for posting, I have been a part of  I am a featured commenter and one of the moderators there.

There is no place generally to go and have a reasoned debate on Trump, Clinton and the ongoing election. Go to The Right Scoop, and anyone opposing Cruz is subjected to the vilest comments imaginable. (I went there once and after writing about 50 words on why the article written was misrepresenting a Trump position, I was attacked in ways that would make a sailor blush. And within two minutes, I was permanently banned.)

Conservation Review? The same thing occurs. Yep, banned The National Review, pro Trump comments are often deleted. But the same happens with the Pro Trump website, The Conservative Treehouse.

I am writing this because I am extending an offer to anyone here.

At HotGas, we would welcome anyone here to pen a thought out article on your views of Trump, other candidates, or the coming General Election.  Then, we can have a reasonable discussion, no name calling, etc.

If anyone chooses to write an article, be prepared to back up claims with proof or facts to support the claims. You will be challenged on what is presented.
Know that HG does support Trump. But know this also…..over 50% of our posters and readers were either Cruz people, as a first or second choice, but most have flipped. We would be happy to discuss why the flipping.

This is your opportunity to present your views to a website that has over 15k unique visits per day, and about 30k hits per day.  Just amazing for a website that began on Feb 8, 2016 and has been operational for just 3 months.

If you want to submit an article, just send me an email, and I will get it posted as a Featured Reader Submission. Just make sure it is well thought out and not just a series of rants.


18  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Nothing on Trump's illegal immigration flip flop at on: August 24, 2016, 03:55:42 PM
Waiting for Pat's outrage.

I doubt anyone here has posted that Trump is evil incarnate. If they did, I missed it. Trump may well win. Prepare yourself for when he fcuks us over to make his "deals".

Since I quit posting here, I have been lurking, reading the posts on the election and the candidates. Several times I have almost posted, but realized that I would once again subject myself to negative articles about Trump promoting media and political talking points that have taken Trump’s words out of  context, his history having been distorted, and rants that Trump is evil incarnate. I can go anywhere for that.

Since blew themselves up by going over Facebook for posting, I have been a part of  I am a featured commenter and one of the moderators there.

There is no place generally to go and have a reasoned debate on Trump, Clinton and the ongoing election. Go to The Right Scoop, and anyone opposing Cruz is subjected to the vilest comments imaginable. (I went there once and after writing about 50 words on why the article written was misrepresenting a Trump position, I was attacked in ways that would make a sailor blush. And within two minutes, I was permanently banned.)

Conservation Review? The same thing occurs. Yep, banned The National Review, pro Trump comments are often deleted. But the same happens with the Pro Trump website, The Conservative Treehouse.

I am writing this because I am extending an offer to anyone here.

At HotGas, we would welcome anyone here to pen a thought out article on your views of Trump, other candidates, or the coming General Election.  Then, we can have a reasonable discussion, no name calling, etc.

If anyone chooses to write an article, be prepared to back up claims with proof or facts to support the claims. You will be challenged on what is presented.
Know that HG does support Trump. But know this also…..over 50% of our posters and readers were either Cruz people, as a first or second choice, but most have flipped. We would be happy to discuss why the flipping.

This is your opportunity to present your views to a website that has over 15k unique visits per day, and about 30k hits per day.  Just amazing for a website that began on Feb 8, 2016 and has been operational for just 3 months.

If you want to submit an article, just send me an email, and I will get it posted as a Featured Reader Submission. Just make sure it is well thought out and not just a series of rants.


19  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Nothing of concern on: August 24, 2016, 09:13:29 AM
20  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Activities on the Continental Shelf on: August 23, 2016, 04:59:22 PM

Expect more. China knows that they won't be stopped.
21  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran, Investing the money to kill Americans on: August 23, 2016, 12:15:25 PM

Yeah, but do they have the cash to build them? Oh, well they do now....
22  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Red lines in the South China Sea on: August 23, 2016, 12:00:32 PM

No worries, team smart power is on it.
23  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / This should bother everyone on: August 22, 2016, 01:21:16 PM

DHS to Roll Out New Orwellian Intelligence Program

The Department of Homeland Security is spending $40 million dollars to fund a “quantitative analysis” program for its  Science and Technology Directorate.  In a grant proposal published this month, DHS calls on colleges and universities to submit plans to support the Center for Homeland Security Quantitative Analysis.

According to the documents, grant winners will support “real-time decision making to address homeland security-related threats and hazards” by conducting research and developing “mission-relevant science and technology.”

    “It is DHS’s intent to produce new capabilities and work with partners and stakeholders at all levels to test these capabilities in operational and strategic settings, and then take steps to make these solutions available and useful to agencies at all levels.”

If it sounds Orwellian, it’s because it is Orwellian.  It’s no secret that DHS faces more challenges than it can handle.  When we talk about intelligence and complex problems, I often bring up efficiency.  In order to compete, organizations have to be efficient, otherwise they fall behind, and inefficiencies are a great contributor to falling behind.  Analysis is nearly always the bottleneck in the flow of information to decision makers.  Organizations can collect massive amounts of data, but it’s rarely useful until the information is evaluated by an analyst.  A shortage of analysts typically leads to a shortage of analysis.  When decision makers don’t have evaluated information and insight into the data — what we can call “intelligence” — they often make poor decisions.

    The Center for Homeland Security Quantitative Analysis (CHSQA) shall develop the next generation of mathematical, computational, and statistical theories, as well as algorithms, methods, and tools to advance the quantitative analysis capabilities [of DHS].

For the past ten years, organizations have been realizing that the solution to that bottleneck is Big Data analytics — or “quantitative analysis”.  The DHS Quantitative Analysis program is a big data approach to problem-solving that requires massive amounts of data (open source information, especially social media) being fed into databases for storage, retrieval, and analysis.  Algorithms will scan and organize data, find patterns, and then direct analysts to high priority data points.  This greatly speeds up the analysis process — removing the traditional bottleneck — because analysts no longer have to sift through all the collected data.  In other words, this technology will help sift through the haystack and deliver some needles to the analyst.

There’s no doubt that DHS is becoming a domestic intelligence agency.  Whatever reason DHS was created — ostensibly to find terrorists and keep the homeland secure — it’s taking steps that should give us pause.  Does DHS really need these capabilities?

But perhaps the most troubling part of this project is that DHS asks:

    At what point do private individuals accept biometrics and data collection as an accepted social process?

Biometrics is going to have a profound and growing impact on American society, as foreshadowed by the desire of DHS to normalize biometric collection of Americans.  I should know.  My last assignment was a Senior Analyst on the Defense Department’s Biometrics Intelligence Program where we tracked down insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By collecting location information (via cell phones, for instance), social media posts and other open source information, along with biometrics, DHS is going to be able to build a pattern of life analysis for any member of the public.  (To see part of what that looks like, see SPACE Analysis.)  America is entering a Brave New World.

Grant proposals for the Center of Excellence for Homeland Security Quantitative Analysis must be submitted by November.  You can download the Grant Opportunity here
24  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / on: August 21, 2016, 08:56:28 PM

Worth watching.
25  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: August 21, 2016, 08:55:46 PM
What if they are raging alcoholics with a hx of head injuries?

26  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The American News Media Sucks on: August 19, 2016, 03:07:38 PM

The American News Media Sucks

    August 19, 2016   correia45   

Louisiana floods. Tens of thousands flee their destroyed homes. Billions of dollars in damage. Unknown number of deaths. Huge natural disaster.

But several days in and I’m still running into people who are like, huh? A flood in Louisiana? You mean Hurricane Katrina, right?  They haven’t heard a thing about it.

That’s because the American news media looks at every single event and asks itself a few simple questions before they decide how much coverage to give something.

First, is there anything we can milk from this story to bolster our worldview? Y/N

Yes. Cover the shit out of it 24/7 breathless panic attack, and demands that we DO SOMETHING. (said something is almost always give the government more power).

No? Meh.

Second, is there anything in this story which could potentially make democrats look bad? Y/N

Yes? What emails? Fuck you.

No? See #3.

Third, is there anything in this story which will make republicans look stupid or evil? Y/N

Yes? Holy shit! Run it! Run it! New Orleans has been utterly destroyed because George Bush controls the weather and hates black people and his incompetence and evil racism has ruined this once beautiful American icon of– (and put that on a loop for the next three weeks)

No? Do we need any filler?

#2 and #3 are for most major media since they predominantly swing left, but for Fox you can just flip the democrat/republican, and they’re just as bad.

Fourth, does this event in some way affect us personally?  Y/N


No? Eh… we’ll talk about it for a minute if we’re not too busy.

My favorite example of that last one was from several years ago. Different flood, Tennessee this time. And a river was about to break its banks. About fifty thousand homes were in immediate danger. The news was in the middle of saying which counties needed to run for their lives so as to not drown—


And then, I shit you not, the news flipped to Times Square in New York City, where GASP, somebody left a cooler unattended. COULD IT BE A BOMB?! This is literally down the street from our offices, and Dear God, it could be terrorists! We go now live to where the NYPD has moved people away from this Murder Death Bomb and have called in their Bomb Squad in their big scary Hurt Locker suits. Go ahead NYPD Lieutenant!

Bored looking NYPD cop: “Uh, the bomb guys are gonna go poke it. Don’t worry. There’s no need to panic. It’s probably just a cooler that some tourist forgot, which happens like ten thousand times a day here and at every other tourist spot in the world. Odds are it isn’t terrorism, but we always check to make sure. I don’t even know why you’re filming us.”


And then they covered it for the next forty minutes straight. With the cameras all pointed at this Styrofoam container LIVE because it is going to BLOW any second! And all of these nervous anchors talking about it in hushed tones while I’m thinking, you know, I’ve got friends in Tennessee, I wonder if they’re running in front of a tidal wave right now? And the news was like FUCK SOUTHERNERS CAN’T YOU SEE THERE IS AN UNATTENDED COOLER HERE WHERE WE LIVE?!  Oh, wait… And the NYPD confirms it contains sandwiches.

But then fifteen minutes of analysis about the sandwiches later, and experts pontificating on the fear inherent in unattended sandwiches… what were we talking about before all the excitement? Oh… Yeah… And everybody in Tennessee has died. Very tragic. So anyways, let’s see what this movie star wore to some party none of you were invited to—

If you keep these four simple questions in mind you can predict with quite a bit of accuracy how many minutes of airtime a story gets, the size and position of newspaper columns about it, and how prominent it will be on websites.

Let’s say there was a mass shooting.

#1. The media loves it some gun control, so initial reports will be how we have to DO SOMETHING!

#2. If it turns out to be a white boy off his meds, then they’ll continue to cover the hell out of it. But if it turns out to be a Muslim yelling Allah Akbar right after the democrat president told everybody terror is contained or that if you’re worried about Muslim refugees it can only be because you are racist, then the coverage drops.

#3. Did the current GOP candidate for president say something stupid about the event? (pretty good odds of that!) Let’s talk about his stupid comments about the event instead of the actual event.

#4. All this is moot if it took place somewhere the reporters actually give a damn about. Garland, Texas? Ha!

Change the shooting around. Random good guy shoots the bad guy one minute in? Zero coverage. Which is why when I’m arguing against gun control folks, and I bring up Random Good Guy With Guns making a difference, and they proclaim that never happens, and I immediately list off a dozen… They stare at me blankly. Those events never get reported because of the media world view.

Change it around again. A psycho who has glommed onto Black Lives Matters murders a bunch of cops. That’s a tough one for our noble reporters, because they really want to push gun control, but they’ll let it slip after a day or two so they can go back to their regular narrative about racist cops gunning down choir boys who were just standing on the corner minding their own business.

Are there bad cops making bad shoots? Sure. But you wouldn’t ever know how many because the media is too fucking stupid crying wolf about everything, justified or not, to ever actually delve into anything as complicated as Use of Force laws.

These simple questions explain why some terrorist attacks get covered, and others don’t. If they can spin the terrorist attack to be about gun control, then they’ll cover it a lot. But then when the same exact kind of attack happens in a country that has incredibly strict gun control, it’ll be a human interest tragedy story, which will quickly fade from the American news in a day or two. And if it is a Muslim terrorist attack in a 3rd world country (like the vast majority of them are in reality) then it will get absolutely zero coverage, and very few people in America will have a clue what you’re talking about.

Mumbai? Westgate? Blank stares.

These biased jackasses never come anywhere near the truth. It is all about narratives bolstering existing world views. I’ve been involved in a bunch of news stories over the years, and the resulting reports seldom have anything to do with the reality.

Think about any topic you are an expert on, and then think about how pissed off you get when you see the news fuck it up. Problem is, they suck that much at everything.

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”― Michael Crichton

So we’re all walking around, thinking we’ve got a clue about stuff, when in reality we’ve been fed bullshit by idiots.

The left side of media requires everybody to be secret angry racists (other than them, obviously), and racial incitement makes great TV. So, cop shoots a white dude. Nobody cares. Cop shoots a black dude, before the crime scene people have even finished taking pictures and nobody has a clue what actually happened, it is getting tons of coverage. People get pissed. And if the news gets lucky somebody burns a Walgreens, which makes for great ratings.

If you watch the news you’d think that America was dissolving into this ultra-violent mega crime wave. When in actuality our murder rate is way down (When I was in Europe recently, everybody I talked to thought that America was like Mad Max, which tells me their news sucks as much as ours does) There are a handful of urban areas with lots of violent crime, but the rest of America is actually pretty damned peaceful (probably because we all died in floods the media never covered).

But, see #4. The media is based out of these big urban areas. Which is why they don’t give a shit about Louisiana or the rest of us, unless of course, they can somehow milk our tragedies for political points.

When it comes to politics this bias is taken to an absurd level. There are plenty of legit reasons to despise either presidential candidate. But what is most political coverage about? Stupid minutia, half of which is made up. So when you get into a discussion with a zealot who has been educated by watching their side’s news, the debate turns into clueless garbled soundbytes, and half the time they don’t even have a clue what you’re talking about, because it never made it past #2 or #3 to get covered.

Or worse, it was so big the media had no choice but to cover it, but they did it so flippantly or dismissively that people think it was no big deal, or they go into partisan excuse making damage control mode to minimize it. When in reality it was a colossal fuck up, where if there was any integrity left in the process, the people involved would have gotten tarred and feathered.

No policies are ever looked at based on what they’ll actually do, it is more, rah rah, go team. Notice that when they were trying to pass Obamacare all of the news coverage was sob stories about poor sick people denied coverage? That’s because all of that pesky accounting saying the thing was destined to choke didn’t fit the worldview. And now that it is falling apart (like everybody who could do math predicted it would) is there much coverage? Don’t be silly. Once it implodes I’m sure it will come as a huge shock, which will cause another big crisis which requires them to DO SOMETHING.

This bias is why the news either portrays vets as poor illiterate dupes sucked into the Imperialistic war machine because you couldn’t get real jobs (like a Barista or HuffPo contributor) so somebody needs to DO SOMETHING or you’re a war mongering ticking time bomb of PTSD addled murder rage waiting to explode in an orgy of violence, and somebody needs to DO SOMETHING.

This absurdist, pundit, echo chamber bullshit just keeps getting more and more obnoxious.

Now you assholes can’t even be bothered to talk about one of the biggest natural disasters in recent history, because it might somehow smear your dude.

And after all this, the American news media is simply baffled that nobody trusts them anymore. No shit, Sherlock. That’s because you suck. The sooner you dinosaur hacks plod off and die from shitty ratings, the better off we’ll all be.
27  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: This is reassuring, Merkel denies link between refugees and terrorism on: August 19, 2016, 01:50:48 PM
Lung cancer existed before I smoked two packs a day...

German news agency dpa quotes Merkel as saying that "Islamist terrorism by IS isn't a phenomenon that came to us with the refugees, it's one that we had before too."

Right, but Ms. Merkel, you made it worse, you made it worse by a million ('finding a needle in a stack of needles'), and you made it unsolvable, irreversible. 

Might as well deny it...

28  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama promises no vacations on: August 19, 2016, 10:52:44 AM

Ah, the dawn of the hope and change era. Good times, my friends, good times...
29  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / From Instapundit: Media coverage on Bush vs. Obama on: August 18, 2016, 08:10:35 PM


Today, Obama is out golfing with “actor/Seinfeld creator Larry David and business exec/Obama Campaign fundraiser Jonathan Lavine,” CBS White House correspondent Mark Knoller tweets.

Incidentally, after her party and its media fully exploited the crisis to take back the House and Senate in 2006, DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile finally confessed at CNN, “Bush came through on Katrina.”

UPDATE: “David Toms knows full well he’s on shaky ground where the FedExCup is concerned,” PGA reports. “Only 125 players advance to next week’s Playoffs. He’s 121st — just 11 points removed from the bubble boy – so Toms was planning on playing in the Wyndham Championship that begins Thursday. Life got in the way, though. Toms is from Louisiana, born and bred. And while his home in Shreveport was spared serious damage from the recent relentless rains, family in Baton Rouge felt Mother Nature’s wrath. So just before noon on Wednesday, Toms made the decision to withdraw from the Wyndham Championship. He was replaced in the field by Andres Romero, who comes to Sedgefield ranked 195th in the FedExCup. ‘I had it all worked out,’ Toms said. ‘I know I am in a precarious position with the FedExCup. ‘But some things are more important than golf.’”

But not if you’re our semi-retired POTUS in full lame duck YOLO mode, it seems.
30  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mystery fires in europe on: August 16, 2016, 11:49:08 AM

I wonder who it could be?
31  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Guardian tries taking down MEMRI on: August 15, 2016, 09:25:04 PM

So, to boil it down to it's essence, the Guardian blames the Jews. Shocking.
32  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A new governing aristocracy made public deception acceptable on: August 15, 2016, 09:11:00 PM

A new governing aristocracy made public deception acceptable
Posted on August 9, 2016 by The Canary   

We live in unprecedented times: With both conventions behind us, roughly three months to the November elections, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the political landscape has radically changed; and not only because both big parties selected highly flawed, even in their own parties relatively unpopular presidential nominees.

Disruptions of traditional American politics goes far beyond that point, and the selection of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as standard bearers of their respective parties, indeed, increasingly looks like only the last step in a decades-long process of declining morality in public policy and politics. It also coincides with a rapidly expanding government, the concomitant growth and ever increasing power of a government-funded administrative “aristocracy,” made up of professional politicians and largely unaccountable government bureaucrats, who no longer listen to the people but believe to have the right to make choices on behalf of the people, while in actuality self-servingly expanding their own interests rather than those of the people.

Administrative “aristocracies” existed throughout history, from ancient Egypt, China and Japan to later European nation states, at times, indeed, similarly to current circumstances in the European Union (i.e. BREXIT) and the U.S. (ratification of the agreement with Teheran by the U.N. rather that the U.S. Congress), more loyal to their “aristocratic” cast members across-borders than to their own nations. This is how, for example, a German rather than British aristocratic family ascended to the British throne creating the House of Windsor or, as recently as in 1921, when a Saudi Arabian “aristocratic” family from Mecca was chosen by the British as rulers of Jordan, creating the Hashemite dynasty that has been in power ever since. Though formal aristocracies lost power in many countries, new administrative “aristocracies” almost always followed. Though, for example, end of aristocratic rule was a declared goal of the French Revolution, Napoleon established elite schools for future government administrators (and politicians), not too dissimilar to how Chinese emperors had ruled their vast empire already in early Chinese dynasties, and thus created a new ruling class (i.e., administrative aristocracy).

Napoleon’s schooling concept has survived in the so-called Grandes écoles of France over a number of French Republics, with the École national d’administration till today seeding governments and the nations administrative as well as business elites, whether from the left or right of the political spectrum. Post WWII, similar administrative “aristocracies” also developed in most other Western European democracies and, when the European Community was established, found its ultimate expression in the Union’s Brussel Bureaucracy, which can be viewed as the principle cause why the BREXIT vote led to the pending departure of the UK from the EU.

Primarily driven by an ever expanding federal government with increasing powers, and by diminished independence of individual states, such a federal administrative “aristocracy” has also been evolving in the U.S. Especially the last 30 years have witnessed exponential growth in the power of this ruling class, at least partially driven by the power of incumbency, offering politicians a high likelihood of reelection, and due to lifetime employment (with practically no legal option of dismissal) for government employees. United by common self-interests of incumbency and ever expanding financial as well as political power, politicians and government bureaucrats now represent our country’s administrative “aristocracy,” not dissimilar to the EU’s administrative “aristocracy” in Brussels. This is why, by income, some of the suburbs of Washington, DC, now are the richest counties in the nation.

Convinced of intellectual superiority, these “aristocratic” bureaucracies create self-perpetuating and self-serving government structures from the ground up by determining what is and what is not politically correct language (and, of course, politically correct thinking); by establishing educational curricula for schools and colleges that “educate” the young, following the old Jesuit dictum, “give me a child until age seven, and I’ll give you the man;” by interpreting laws in thousands of rules and regulations, many never intended by congress; in other words, by removing the administration of the country further and further from the direct will of the people.

Since ideologies throughout history never were able to co-exist with traditional religious believes, it is not surprising that these “aristocratic” bureaucracies are usually agnostic, and often even overtly hostile to the exercise of free religions. The empty space of religion is filled with “modern religiosity,” best defined as abstract concepts of thought, which share with religions the indisputable conviction of absolute and, therefore, indisputable truth; yet, like religions, they are also characterized by absence of all provability and, at times, are empirical illogical.

A good example for such illogical thinking is, for example, the laudable insistence on equality of all religions (i.e., Islam with Christianity and Judaism) while, at the same time restricting the ability of Christians to practice their religion freely. A good example for the results of such illogical thinking is that currently over 50% of U.S. college students allegedly favor socialism over capitalism, even though every student of history would know that in innumerable incarnations socialism has without exception always failed as an economic model, and more often than not, ended up leading to dictatorships and economic misery (see the current Venezuela, the country with the largest oil reserves in the world). This statistical fact is, however, also a good example how radically this new American “aristocracy” has changed America in recent decades. Even President Obama in his first election campaign, only eight years ago, still categorically rejected the label of being a “socialist” for fear of becoming unelectable. Only eight years later, Bernie Sanders, a declared Socialist would, likely, have become the elected Democratic presidential candidate, had the party leadership not undemocratically conspired against his election.

Looking back in history, considering the more recent political climate in the country, it is really quite remarkable that when the Watergate Scandal broke in the 1970s in the second Nixon administration, Republicans were on the forefront of those demanding his impeachment. Contrast that to what happened during the second Democratic Clinton administration, when the truth no longer mattered and relativity of values, suddenly, ruled the day.

Can anybody imagine that an earlier U.S. president would have politically survived a Lewinsky- like Scandal? And, yet in 1997, only a little over 20 years following Watergate, Bill Clinton not only survived, but became one of the country’s most popular ex-presidents. The political value system of the country in those short years had, obviously, radically changed: Doing the right thing for the country was out; and self-preservation of the ruling “aristocratic” class, based on the relativity of human values, was in. Not one Democratic member of the Senate supported Clinton’s impeachment, and many Republican politicians who had pushed for it, saw their political careers destroyed.

After Watergate, the Lewinsky Affair, likely, became the most decisive political event in recent American history because, for the first time, an American president in a televised broadcast literally looked into the eyes of the nation and outright lied, when stating “I have never had sex with this woman.”

Many, maybe even most presidents before Clinton, of course, also have on occasion been less than truthful; but nobody, except of course Nixon (“I am not a crook”), has in recent history so blatantly lied to the American people as Bill Clinton and, yet, gotten away with it, in the process changing American politics for ever by demonstrating that the modern multimedia world practically always offers the opportunity to relativize the truth of the message (to quote Bill Clinton, “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”).

The political “aristocracy” learned this lesson very quickly and, of course, nobody better than Hillary Clinton. She would never have dared to follow through with the absolute insane idea of establishing her own Internet server while serving as Secretary of State, had she not been convinced that she could manipulate the truth, should it be discovered. Piercing her words, as her husband had done so well during the Lewinsky Affair, she, indeed, has successfully avoided indictment by the Justice Department, even though a majority of Americans, likely, believe that she escaped because of special considerations by Obama’s Justice Department. Completely exposed in her deception by the FBI investigation, she, remarkably, still continues to lie in her statements to the public.

That Hillary Clinton was not indicted also explains why investigations of Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal never went anywhere, why six weeks before national presidential elections the first Obama administration could instruct senior administration officials to claim that the U.S. ambassador’s murder in Benghazi was not caused by terrorists but by a ridiculous irrelevant video produced in Los Angeles. This is also why Hillary Clinton is still a candidate for President of the U.S., even though common sense suggests that she should have been indicted, and why President Obama can with a straight face go on national television, telling the American people that sending 400 million dollars in foreign untraceable currencies on an unmarked plane in the middle of the night to Teheran represents just “routine” government relations between two governments, and had absolutely nothing to do with the concomitant release of four American hostages.

It has quite obviously become routine for senior government officials, including America’s current President, without fear of political or legal retributions, to blatantly lie to the American people. This, of course, does not happen by happenstance: it is a reflection of how much our country’s political morality has changed over the last three decades.

Within the ruling “aristocracy,” loyalty to the ruling class supersedes right and wrong, and even loyalty to the country is only, at best, second. This is why Ms. Lerner took the Fifth when questioned before Congress about the IRS scandal rather than inform Congress on who instructed her to discriminate against potential political opponents of the Obama administration. She knew that she could count on being protected, and that there would be no serious follow up investigation by the FBI. This is also why only one person was fired in the Veterans Affairs Scandal, the Justice Department decided not to defend a law suit this person filed about her dismissal, and the Obama administration announced that it would no longer implement a law Congress passed that allowed the Veterans Administrator to fire government employees for appropriate cause. And this is also why Hillary Clinton had no hesitation of appointing Ms. Wasserman-Schultz to the position of Honorary Chair of her campaign on the day she was forced to resign as Chair of the Democratic Party after public disclosure how the party under her leadership subverted the primary election process in favor of Ms. Clinton. One hand, of course, washes the other; the administrative “aristocracy” protects its own!

The public instinctively feels the growing divide between the ruling administrative “aristocracy” of both major parties and the American people. This is unquestionably a major reason why Congress and both parties have reached a nadir in popularity. The only question remaining is whether the public is upset enough about where the political “aristocracy” has taken the country to revolt, and take the risk in the upcoming election to consider the unknown over the unacceptable. If the answer is yes, then Donald Trump will be the next U.S. president; if the answer is no, then Hillary Clinton will not only be the first female president of the U.S. but, assuming the public’s anger with Washington continues to grow and finally boils over during her administration, she may end up being the first president since Richard Nixon not finishing a full term in the White House.
33  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc. on: August 15, 2016, 09:07:37 PM
One can only imagine the fertile ground for fraud in nursing homes where there are many residents who are demented or are not otherwise engaged.  I bet many of these vote.  If it is a relative who is voting for them in a way they know they would have voted that is probably ok.   But what about those who don't get visitors or visitors who help them vote? 

I wonder how many absentee ballots come in from nursing home residents.  I wonder how many are frauds.

I have seen profoundly mentally ill people taken to vote by their gov't employee minders. Gee, I wonder how many voted for Obama the last few times?
34  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Jimi on Milwaukee on: August 15, 2016, 08:31:39 PM
Coming soon, to a city near you!

35  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Anti-semitism at the olympics on: August 15, 2016, 11:39:22 AM

Anyone shocked?
36  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Venezuela's socialism creates wealth! on: August 15, 2016, 12:20:43 AM

37  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The confiscations begin in NYC on: August 15, 2016, 12:17:20 AM

I'd be more concerned if I hadn't lost my gun collection in an unfortunate canoe accident.
38  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen. Bernie Sanders on: August 14, 2016, 01:46:09 AM

Whoops! Multi-billionaire.
39  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen. Bernie Sanders on: August 12, 2016, 04:02:40 PM
Well, they are authentic socialists, as every worker's paradise has it's elites who live very well, despite the gulags, mass graves and starvation.

Hugo Chavez' daughter somehow became a multimillionaire. Must be from the success of Venezuela's economic model.

It's scientific!
40  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen. Bernie Sanders on: August 11, 2016, 12:23:54 PM
Just because they structure the payoffs as to not be payoffs doesn't make it any less crooked.

Cattle futures!
41  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: another look on: August 11, 2016, 11:28:06 AM
In fairness to Bernie his net worth including real estate is around 1.7 million if this site is to be believed.  While obviously well off this is a pittance compared to many of the "insiders" in DC:

I will still never understand how someone accumulates 1.7 million doing nothing other than a lifetime of public service work, a carpentry job, and maybe some liberal arts 30 years ago.

La mordida!
42  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc) on: August 11, 2016, 10:26:43 AM
Good to know-- the maps and the pictures add mightily to the value of Stratfor's work.

43  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China's military presence in the South China Sea on: August 11, 2016, 09:35:17 AM
A Glimpse Into China's Military Presence in the South China Sea is republished with permission of Stratfor."

Does this URL work for you guys?

44  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Another outbreak of mental illness on: August 06, 2016, 01:19:22 PM

"Allah akbar!" Which of course means "Nothing to do with islam".

Nothing to see here, move along.
45  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pissing on our collective legs and telling us it's raining on: August 05, 2016, 10:11:54 AM

Two Priorities of the Government
Priority 1: Supporting Jihadis

Euro-blockThem, and terrorists, hostage takers and terror sponsors everywhere.

That’s  the economical explanation for the President and State Department’s decision to ship $400 million in cash, in Euros and Swiss Francs, to Iran. Officially, say the signed-up-to-lie-for-their-country weasels at State, there is “no linkage” between this ransom and the four Americans that Iran released with all due speed after unloading the pallets of cash, which are already being used to fund new global terror attacks. It’s just a matter of purest happenstance! (One gets the impression that if one of them pulled a trigger, he’d be amazed that it produced a gunshot. But as none of them will ever pull a trigger — they hire, and abandon, people for that — we’ll never know). As the WSJ put it:

    The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran…

And certainly the ransoming of the existing hostages had no linkage to the Iranians’ subsequent decision to take two more US Citizen hostages.

That view wasn’t unanimous, even in this gang:

    Senior Justice Department officials objected to sending a plane loaded with cash to Tehran at the same time that Iran released four imprisoned Americans, but their objections were overruled by the State Department

Eli Lake says that’ll really teach Iran. Specifically, that hostage-taking pays.

But who will call it a ransom? Not the reporters who act as the typing pool for Ben Rhodes, van driver turned national security adviser.

In addition to the secret delivery of $400 million, the Iranians received seven Iranians, a mix of convicted criminals and convicted spies held in US prisons.

    The four released Americans are Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian; Amir Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine; Christian pastor Saeed Abedini; and Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari, whose case had not been publicized before the release.

State Department designated liar John Kirby, who must have been a real prize as a naval officer, says it wasn’t ransom.

    However, the Journal says U.S. officials acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.

But American hostage Saeed Abedini said he and the others were held hostage quite literally until the ransom arrived. Told they were going to be held 20 minutes, the hostages were held on a plane overnight, until the money arrived and checked out. Only then could their jet depart.

     I ask them why you don’t let us go…. And he said we are waiting for another plane so if that plane doesn’t come we never let us go.

And it’s already produced more hostage taking:

    Since the cash was airlifted, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has arrested two more Iranian-Americans. Tehran also has detained dual-nationals from France, Canada and the U.K. in recent months.

What Iran wants, Iran gets, at least out of this Axis of Weakness in Washington.

To steal a gag from the mighty Horwitz brothers (and Larry Feinberg): Hasan Ben Sober. Remember him?

Further on Priority 1: of the 14 Muslim-Americans to have perished in the unending war cycle in the Middle East, funny how the one the Democrats and the press single out is the one who father is a Moslem Brotherhood immigration lawyer, dedicated to the imposition of the terror of Sharia worldwide.

Yes, Trump is a loudmouth boor. If you didn’t know that before he ever ran for anything, where have you been… under a rock? But Khizr Khan is an actual enemy. His son was not; the men who served with him praise him highly. But it’s interesting that the one guy they find is from the same anti-American jihad crew that gave us the other presidential candidate’s girlfriend Close Personal Assistant (NTTAWWT).

By the way, more Americans have been killed by American Moslems in our own uniform, than American Moslems have died honorably serving. So for any given American Moslem, what’s his flag? The odds say it’s about 60/40, the black flag of jihad over the stars and stripes.
Priority 1, Part 3: 10,000 Syrians Will be Here by 1 September

In this goal, to bring in 10,000 rapefugees direct from Syria, the President has the help of most Republicans, including the top men in the House and Senate, Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Chinless Mitch McConnell. Some 8,000 of them are already here, 2,359 of them arriving in July. They are almost all Sunni Moslems, the sect that supports ISIL. (Christian and Yazidi minorities seem to have been screened out in preference to Moslems). If August matches July, the number of rapefugees will blow through the President’s initial demand for 10,000.

It’s a generally used rule of thumb, taught in various special operations and intelligence courses, that about one in ten war refugees is an active enemy, either recruited by the enemy already or ready to voluntarily do his bidding. Syrian refugees have committed several high-profile murders in Europe lately.

Secretary of State John Kerry says you shouldn’t believe your lying eyes. “We are very comfortable that we are bringing people in who will be a great plus to our country.” Of course, he’s the guy who tried to cut his own deal with North Vietnam in 1971.
Priority 2: Easing the Path of Criminals

jailbreakWe’ve just had another record-setting release of criminals. Mostly, they seem to be released because the President believes that they were just being picked on because of their race. The 214 felons, including 67 lifers, are already out. ABC News has an inadvertently funny report:

    Almost all the prisoners were serving time for nonviolent crimes related to cocaine, methamphetamine or other drugs, although a few were charged with firearms violations related to their drug activities.

Depends on how you define “a few,” cupcake.  The lifers were almost all felons in possession; of the others, about 25% of them had a firearms charge, and others had prior violent crimes, although this time they didn’t shoot anybody.


    One of the inmates, Dicky Joe Jackson of Texas, was given a life sentence in 1996 for methamphetamine violations and for being a felon with an unlicensed gun.

That means he was a minimum of a two-time loser. What public good is served by releasing him?

    All told, Obama has commuted 562 sentences during his presidency — more than the past nine presidents combined, the White House said. Almost 200 of those who have benefited were serving life sentences.

Two hundred lifers. Imagine the crimes they will commit before they go back again. Heather McDonald did a quick scan for “firearm” in the lucky-felon list:

    …a search of the commutation database comes up with 156 hits for “firearms” (some of those hits are multiple counts for the same offender). Wilson Henderson, of Hollywood, Fla., for example, was convicted of “use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime,” according to the Justice Department press release. Kenneth Evans, of Fort Worth, Texas, was convicted of “use and carry firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting.” Mark Anthony Clark, of Rockford, Ill., was convicted of “possession of a firearm by a felon/fugitive from justice and aiding and abetting,” as well as of conspiracy to distribute 100 grams of meth.

    Many of the commuttees possessed stolen firearms or firearms with their serial numbers obliterated. Some were in violation of National Firearms Registration, which can mean possession of a federally prohibited weapon, such as a machine gun, silencer, or sawed-off shotgun. We don’t know how many guns the offenders actually had; a commuttee during a previous batch of commutations had 40.

    Nor does the Justice Department’s press release disclose the actual incidence of firearm possession by these federal convicts. Gun possession can be used to increase a federal sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines without a prosecutor’s actually bringing a formal charge. A gun charge can also be plea-bargained away.

Interesting how the advocates of gun control don’t advocate it against actual criminals.

Back to the ABC infotainment story:

    “All of the individuals receiving commutation today — incarcerated under outdated and unduly harsh sentencing laws — embody the president’s belief that ‘America is a nation of second chances,'” White House counsel Neil Eggleston wrote in a blog post.

Second chances to rob, assault, rape and kill. Thank you Mr President! It’s a safe bet than none of these nogoodniks will be dossing down in Counselor Eggleston’s neighborhood. You wouldn’t be soft on crime like that, if you didn’t have a lot of human-victim-tamping-material between you and the recipients of your mercies.

And wait! There’s more.

    “We are not done yet,” Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said. “We expect that many more men and women will be given a second chance through the clemency initiative.”

Second chance? To rob, assault, rape and kill. And they’ll be using ’em.

One last note from this “diversity”-obsessed administration (and media). The criminals cut loose:

    …represent a diverse cross-section of America geographically.

Just “geographically,” huh? It what characteristics might the set of rewarded criminals not have a wide range of variation?
46  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude) on: August 04, 2016, 08:37:54 AM
We are lied to.
47  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: First Amendment scholar Johnson on: August 03, 2016, 02:41:43 PM

Johnson has been hitting the bong way too much.
48  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media, Ministry of Truth, NY Times on: August 02, 2016, 08:54:42 PM
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal captures the shameless partisanship of the New York Times in just a few sentences. The sentences come from editorials that appeared in 2012 and 2016 regarding the views of the Republican presidential candidates on Russia.

Here is the New York Times on March 29, 2012:

Two decades after the end of the cold war, Mitt Romney still considers Russia to be America’s ‘No. 1 geopolitical foe.’ His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender.

Here’s the Times today, July 27, 2016:

Regardless of whether Mr. Putin is out to help Mr. Trump, voters would be right to question the judgment of a candidate who has shown so much admiration for such a dangerous adversary.

Credit:  James Taranto, WSJ

We have always been at war with Eastasia.
49  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Venezuela on: August 01, 2016, 10:59:04 AM
How do you say "Gulag" in Spanish?

I am going to guess the word is Venezuela.
50  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Nothing lasts forever on: August 01, 2016, 10:31:59 AM

How much longer?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 277
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!