Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 24, 2017, 08:57:10 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
103034 Posts in 2384 Topics by 1090 Members
Latest Member: Cgregurich73
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 297
101  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Apple notes and privacy? on: June 05, 2017, 04:53:46 PM

And it felt incredibly safe. As I made my own way to the tram, I wrote in my Apple Notes app, "Helicopter hovering overhead," which to me signified that the fans were being watched over. Then two policemen stopped me and asked me who I was with and whether I'd written anything about a helicopter into my phone, without explaining the technology of how they'd read my Notes app. After a friendly back-and-forth, they looked through my bag, checked my ID and business card and determined I wasn't a threat. "You have to understand, tensions are running high," one of the men said with a smile and a handshake, allowing me through the gate. Manchester was secure tonight.
102  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WASHINGTON POST COVERS UP LEFT-WING VIOLENCE IN PORTLAND on: June 05, 2017, 04:43:15 PM


After the election of a president it hates, the Washington Post adopted as a slogan “democracy dies in darkness.” But “darkness” isn’t a problem in our society. With the media explosion of the past few decades and the constant glare of the news cycle, the problem, if any, is confusion. The danger is being blinded by the lights.

But adopting the slogan “democracy dies in darkness” should carry with it a duty to shed light. The Post sheds none in this disgraceful story by Leah Sottile about events in Portland, Oregon yesterday. The headline (paper edition) reads: “Portland right-wing rally draw huge counterprotests.”

Note the Post’s use of the term “right-wing” in its headline to describe the rally. In a headline, it’s defensible to use short-hand to describe the rally. However, “pro-Trump” would have been a better choice, inasmuch as the rally was organized with the specific intent of supporting the president. If the Post wanted to insist on “right-wing,” the headline should have described the event as a “right-wing free speech rally,” as it did in the internet version of the story.

In the story itself, Sottile should have dropped the short-hand and named the group that organized the rally — Patriot Prayer. She didn’t do so until the very end of the article. By that time, she had repeated the term “right wing” four times. This isn’t just bias; it’s juvenile.

Sottile uses the term “left-wing” once to describe the counterprotesters. But when she does, she calls them them “left-wing, anti-fascist” protesters. As will become clear in a moment, there was nothing anti-fascist about the thugs in question.

But these are quibbles. The real problem is Sottile’s utter failure to describe what actually happened in Portland. She spends half of the article talking about events other than the rally — e.g., the stabbings of a week ago. Her obvious goal is somehow to tie the pro-Trump demonstrators to events like the stabbings, even though they had nothing to do with them.

When Sottile finally gets to rally, she fails to report on the attack by the “left-wing, anti-fascists” on the Portland police. In her account, these good-natured folk merely “chanted, blared music, and held paper-mache spiders and skeletons.” In her account, the police responded by declaring their protest unlawful and “deploying a volley of flash grenades into the crowd of counterprotesters” (no mention here that they are left-wing).

In reality, the left-wing protesters attacked the police. Jazz Shaw at Hot Air provides a good account, based on the reporting of media outlets more honest than the Washington Post — e.g., CNN and AP, believe it or not — as well as the Portland Police’s twitter account (in real time).

At first, the “anti-fascists” exchanged insults with their antagonists. But then, they started to throw glass bottles and bricks at the officers.

I happened to have CNN on at around this time. The CNN anchor asked the reporter which group of demonstrators had hurled bricks and bottles at the police. The question had to be asked, though it almost answers itself. The CNN reporter stated unequivocally that the bricks and bottles were thrown by the black clad “antifa” (anti-fascist) protesters, not the peaceful pro-Trump contingent.

According to the police, the initial incidents of rocks and bottle throwing at the original site of the protests were contained pretty quickly and most of the action moved to the Chapman Square location where the masked leftists were ready to mix it up. This resulted in the police making arrests and the confiscating weapons. The weapons included bags of bricks, chains, and razors.

(Shaw is careful to note that there was another group of anti-Trump protesters present, made up of immigrant rights, religious, and labor groups. They do not appear to have engaged in violence).

The Washington Post managed to miss all of this. In its telling, the anti-fascists are last seen chanting, listening to music, and being attacked, apparently for no reason, by the police.

Democracy dies when mobs shut down free speech and violently resist the result of an election. That’s what the “anti-fascists” are trying to do. The Washington Post isn’t promoting democracy when it shrouds these efforts in darkness.
103  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The Prisoner's Dilema; Game Theory on: June 05, 2017, 04:04:03 PM

"They would find themselves locked with the U.S. in a 'prisoner's dilemma' -- that is, a scenario in which both parties end up in a worse situation than they would have otherwise realistically attained had they cooperated in a credible fashion."

Can you post the relevant parts of the article for those who do not wish join linkedin? Thanks.
104  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Suarez is correct on: June 05, 2017, 03:45:25 PM

Sunday, June 04, 2017


"One of them had a big knife, then he came in and walked around the restaurant,  I guess they just kind of stabbed anyone that they saw and knocked things on the ground and then we just hid."

So this last weekend - mid Ramadan (but the UK authorities are adamant that has nothing to do with it) - yet another series of well coordinated attacks in London.  The timing was on cue, and the technology was primitive, yet the effect was successful.  The weapons were simple: Aggression, Motor Vehicles, and Knives.  Unless the nanny-state wishes to now castrate the aggression out of all males, prohibit all sharp instruments in an Okinawan-like decree, and force everyone to use public transportation, the ability of the state to prevent the next one is ridiculously impossible as long as the culture that advocates such things is allowed to roam free in the west.

That last bit is out of the hands of normal people like us, yet we are the ones that will stand at the front line of the effects of the political decisions made by those in charge.  And we will either stand as ready sacrifices to the death cult, or as combatants.  Britain seems to have already chosen out of their self-imposed helplessness. Soon the west, and Europe in particular, will either find its warrior heart and embrace the old ways, or it will be bent over the table and given its fate.

In this article, which I am certain will upset the "martial arts" guys, I will discuss the reality of facing a jihadist with a knife bent of "stabbing anyone they see".  I will discuss "The Jihadist Vehicle Attacks" later.

So here we go -

1).  Forget the fantasy of empty hand defenses:

Do not think for one minute that your secret Jujitsu or Kung Fu methods will guarantee you winning against a dedicated, motivated, young and fit jihadist armed with a big knife intent on killing you.  Add to that his expectation of dying that day...add to that his accomplices, also armed with knives, and you get a clearer picture.  And winning does not mean 7 out of 10 in the drills at the means we want a solid chance at a 100% success rate because anything less means that you die.  Your chances may be better if you have devoted your entire life to nothing but full contact martial arts training (and if your adversaries are unskilled)...but otherwise...unarmed against the knife is a very foolish match to go into.

2).  Instead of going Jackie Chan, use a weapon:

Yes, I may mean violating the rules.  As I have said...and it is almost a cliche now...we live in a time of war and we must make adjustments to the reality and accept that the authorities cannot prevent these events from taking place.  So if you live in a free state, carry a firearm with you - EVERYWHERE.  Ignore the sign if there is one saying you cannot.  If you live in a not so free state, carry a firearm with you anyway and always obey the speed limit.  If you live in a country intentionally bereft of any warrior culture, see item three.

3).  Always be armed no matter the rules:

"But Gabe...we live in (insert oppressed socialist state or nation here) and we can't even buy a picture of a gun here".

A modern, educated man with a set of nuts in his bag will always figure out a way to be armed.  No guns?  OK, get your own knife.  Knife versus knife is a far better proposition than unarmed versus knife is it not?  My God, at the very least get a big fat stick that you can claim is a cane and that you can crush skulls with.  It really is not that difficult if there is courage, and a will, and a defiant heart that denies the state's right to control your destiny.

"But Gabe, the rules say I cannot have guns, knives, sticks, anything that could possibly be used as a weapon and they are about to pass laws banning ill will".

When you cannot live in safety, and in obedience to the established law, a learned man will happily become a scofflaw.  If you disagree with that, I really have nothing for you.  Sorry...good luck.

4). Learn to be violent:

This is why I am not impressed with the majority of martial arts training.  Too much sport.  Too much esoteric spiritual stuff.  Not enough violence.  We need more "martial", and less "art" - as it were.  I expect that today, the Monday after the London Bridge attack, the martial arts schools in the UK (and USA) will be filled with eager soccer moms and football dads (cricket-moms and rugby-dads?) looking for the easy solution to this problem.  And they will be taught esoteric stuff intended for the "perfection of character", or stuff developed for winning a match somewhere.

What they need is to be taught to physically destroy their opponent, crushing windpipes, smashing skulls, breaking bones.  The "real karate" that so few schools even understand much less teach.  But again, see item 1.  I have trained in hand to hand stuff since I was ten years old and I would prefer to not face  against a knife empty handed.

5).  Learn preemption:

It is 2017.  Are we already forgetting that there is a true social-religious-political culture living in the truth invited by the west, that seeks to supplant western culture by force and attrition with its own culture?  If you see a couple of strong young men, that look like they just got off the boat from Afghanistan moving aggressively toward you with knives in their hands - do we really need to have a time out to explain what their intentions are for you?

This is the time to draw and shoot each one of them to the ground, not running or hiding. 

6).  Keep alert:

All the weapons and willingness to violence will not help you in the least if you are asleep at the bar.  The first part of all this is staying alert.  Sit where you can see the exit, have your back covered or have an equally alert associate watching it.  Look around constantly and know who is moving and what is happening.  Don't want to live like that you say?  Well, western nations, you should have thought about that before you invited the death cult into your country, or voted for fools that did so.  You live in a time of war and you will either deny it and hope you are not selected by the next jihadist, or you accept reality and prepare to meet him.

That is all.  There are no secret techniques to defend against the knife by physically frail and empty handed males.  It takes violence and weapons.  And in that order.
105  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Brits bury report on Saudi financing on: June 05, 2017, 02:38:37 PM

We are long part the point where it is time to recognize that the Saudis are just ISIS with better P.R.
106  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why the UK is doomed, part II on: June 05, 2017, 02:37:35 PM

Is Britain Doomed?


I picked up the following "Tweetstorm" on Sunday in the wake of the multiple terrorist attacks in England. As is my custom, I will embed the first tweet in the series, and then lift out only the text in the others to save space and page loading time.

Context: Thomas Wictor, the author of the tweets, is responding to some progressive who is complaining about Breitbart writers.

So here we go:

 Brian Klaas ✔ @brianklaas
The ignorance of these Breitbart writers is astonishing. Worse, the guy who used to run Breitbart (Steve Bannon) is still in the White House
 Thomas Wictor @ThomasWictor
@brianklaas (1) Last night, I saw something that I would've never thought possible.

It made me realize that the UK is likely doomed.
12:44 PM - 4 Jun 2017
View image on Twitter
  998 998 Retweets   1,345 1,345 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
(2) Breitbart writers don't matter. They have no authority. Their opinions are just blather. HERE'S what matters:

metro police warning.jpg

(3) A British man took video as unarmed, helpless police came into a bar and told everyone to lie down on the floor.
(4) In the middle of a mass-casualty terrorist attack, one customer shouted "F*cking Muslim c*nts!" He thought he was about to die.
(5) The man filming--in the MIDDLE OF THE ATTACK--began lecturing the other about how he shouldn't say such things.
(6) The comments on this man's Twitter feed showed that MANY Brits think it's rational to criticize victims of terrorism for their language.
(7) Keep in mind that the terrorist attack WAS IN PROGRESS, the victims were cowering on the floor, yet offensive language was the issue.
(Cool An Israeli told me a joke once: Two Jewish men are being led to the wall to be executed by firing squad.
(9) One man says, "To hell with it. I'm going to demand a last cigarette." "Be quiet!" say the other. "You'll get us in trouble!"
(10) The joke is funny because it's based in reality, BUT IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN FOR REAL.
(11) Last night, that joke happened FOR REAL in the UK.
(12) As two men waited to be killed by terrorists, one criticized the other for offensive language against Muslims.
(13) The fact that so many Brits APPLAUDED this insanity shows that Britain is likely doomed.
So, to recap: Britain is doomed because most of her citizenry have their heads firmly lodged in the sand.

And then, as if on cue, here comes a British guy with his head firmly lodged in the sand:

stilltherealgraemek @GKenna49
Replying to @ThomasWictor

That guy can go home knowing he was tested to the extreme & came out if it an instinctively decent human being which terrorists never are
And that is why they will never win. Even when there's a possibility of death he retained British decency & principles.
I don't know if it's infuriating or gratifying to have the very point you were attempting to explain demonstrated perfectly, and in such an obvious manner. It's probably what Larry Correa felt when he started Sad Puppies to prove that the Hugo awards had been commandeered by an inbred clique of intolerant SJW goons, and they responded by publicly vilifying him as an evil right winger and declaring him persona non grata in an attempt to reduce his book sales. All the while insisting that they weren't intolerant SJW goons.

Or like claiming that Islam breeds violence and then getting death threats from Muslims. "Behead those who say Islam is violent." Yeah, that makes sense.

(h/t to Mark Huffman for the metro police warning pic)
107  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why the UK is doomed, part I on: June 05, 2017, 02:34:32 PM

Barren Cat Lady

Guest Post by The Zman

The above is the speech from British Prime Minister Barren Cat Lady after the latest attack by Muslims in Britain. Like all modern political speeches, hers was vapid and stupid in ways that suggest the people who wrote it, and the Prime Minister herself, are suffering from brain damage. The best part of the speech was the airy and frivolous platitudes about the true nature of Islam. Funny how our pols are now all experts on Islam.

It is only five minutes long, but it is tough to take so I’ll cover the key points for you. Barren Cat Lady wants everyone to know that the people responsible for importing millions of hyper-violent savages into Britain are on top of things. That’s something you never hear addressed in public by the pols of any party or the so-called news reporters allegedly charged with grilling them. No one ever asks, “why did you import these strangers into our lands?” It’s treated as if it just magically happened like a freak storm or earth quake.

Of course, someone could start asking these questions, so the Barren Cat Lady promised to ramp up policing of the Internet. No kidding. That was her first big proposal. She wants the British government to further stamp out speech on-line and she wants other countries to stamp out free expression in their countries as well. When your first response to an attack by foreign invaders is to crack down on your own citizens, it is not unreasonable to wonder who Barren Cat Lady is blaming for these attacks.

After she promise to crack down on the Internet, as if it is a thing with agency of its own, she makes noises about properly worshiping the gods of the new religion. She provides an example by informing us that the Muslims doing this are not practicing real Islam. That despite what all the Imams say and their holy books instruct, the real Islam is this wonderful thing that is going to be great for Britain. Even though the corpses are piling up, what’s important is that you don’t notice that all the perpetrators are Muslims.

Humorously, she then declares this mysterious, perverted version of Islam, that looks like all the other versions of Islam, is the great challenge of our time. She then goes on to say that “British values” of pluralistic tolerance are superior to anything offered by the preachers of hate. Well, we will find out soon enough. So far, the British people have not been able to rouse themselves from their drunken degeneracy to do anything about this challenge. The scoreboard says the Muslims are winning in a blowout, pun intended.

Probably the most laugh out loud line in the sermon, and yes, this was a sermon, was when Barren Cat Lady said that “we have to be less tolerant of extremism. And yes, that could mean some embarrassing and difficult conversations.” Embarrassing for whom is never mentioned, but we know. The reason we know is after the last Muslim attack, the one last week, the Brits went around arresting white people for saying mean things about Muslims on Faceberg. Being arrested is embarrassing, even when you’re innocent.

What was revealed by this speech is that outside of the public eye, the people in charge of Britain have no emotional or moral attachment to the British people. As far as they are concerned, the people are just a burden, whether it is the hyper-violent oogily-boogily people that arrive over the channel or the native Brits. Barren Cat Lady sees no difference between a Muslim from Pakistan and an Episcopalian for York. She just sees grasping hands demanding her time when she would much rather be elsewhere.

Prior to watching this speech, I figured that this event would get the sane Brits out to vote next week for the Tories. Labour is led by a deranged lunatic who should probably be locked away in an institution. No matter how bad the Tories have been, incompetent is better than radically deranged. Watching Barren Cat Lady, I think I’d be switching my vote and going with the black pill candidate, Burn it down. The only hope is to wipe out the people who put Barren Cat Lady in charge and then have the final battle with the crazies.

This is the same problem we face in the US. Instead of Barren Cat Lady, we have faggots like Caitlyn Graham and Paul Ryan supposedly leading the charge against the nihilistic death cult called the American Left. Trump is the black pill, which is why so many of us voted for him, despite what it most likely meant. The only way the West has any chance of defeating the demographic and ideological challenges facing it is to first hang all of the people currently in charge. Then new leaders can emerge to lead the fight.
108  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: A Ramadan clip; Shapiro on Three Myths on: June 05, 2017, 02:07:39 PM

What is the effective radius of a bomb vest? A knife? a rifle? A truck running you over?

It's impossible for a muslim to do any of the above when they aren't in your country.
109  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: To Lower Health Care Costs, Try Freedom on: June 05, 2017, 01:56:45 PM

No opportunities for graft and rent-seeking with freedom. That's why politicians frown on it.
110  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate on: June 05, 2017, 01:55:10 PM
Is that by Hwy. 24 to I-70? I was thinking down to "Buenie" and up 285.

Not bad.  How long is the drive into Denver?

90 miles, 90 minutes to the edge of Denver, same as Vail, mostly freeway crossing the continental divide twice.  Snow in winter, crisp nights, beautiful summers, 300 days/yr of sunshine.  Near Turquoise Lake, surrounded by national forest, mountain peaks, hiking trails.
111  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Lets get our military electronics from a Chinese company on: June 04, 2017, 09:24:00 PM
That weasels its' way in the door through a subcontractor:


Wow. We are in the best of hands.
112  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate on: June 04, 2017, 09:22:42 PM
Not bad.  How long is the drive into Denver?

About 3 hours, if the roads are clear. I actually have ancestors that settled in that area.
113  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy, Was the blue state penalty designed to bring Dems to the table? on: June 04, 2017, 08:40:07 AM
WSJ, Schumer’s choice: Play on tax reform or lose the state and local deduction.

Can blue state ideologues be leveraged to act in their own best interest?  I doubt it.

I draw a distinction.  State income taxes are a direct tax on high income earners.  Property taxes are not.

Between this and California's new and exciting single payer, Crafty is going to have to think real hard about where to live.
114  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: CNN on London jihad attacks: we don’t know “their motives” on: June 04, 2017, 08:25:34 AM

People might want to try a news source that does.

3 more attacks overnight in London.  Knives and truck.  More deaths, more injuries.

Our guess that it might be Lutheran extremists is not real funny anymore.

How were the trucks radicalized? The U.K. Obviously needs to do more outreach to vehicles and reduce the overwhelming vehicle-phobia.
Who knew Trump's withdrawal from the Paris accords would have such immediate negative effects, well aside from killing all of humanity!!!!!
115  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The New York Times Just Outed The CIA’s Top Iran Spy on: June 02, 2017, 05:08:00 PM

The New York Times Just Outed The CIA’s Top Iran Spy

JUNE 2, 2017 By Bre Payton
In an article published Friday, The New York Times outed the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) top spy overseeing the organization’s efforts in Iran. The paper justified its outing of the undercover CIA spy and his role within the agency by saying it was necessary since the agent is “leading an important new administration initiative against Iran.”

Yes. That really happened.

In an article entitled “C.I.A. Names New Iran Chief in a Sign of Trump’s Hard Line,” the newspaper of record revealed that Michael D’Andrea, who previously led the hunt for Osama bin Laden, will now be in charge of the agency’s operations in Iran.

As the Times explained in its report, Iran is “one of the hardest targets” for the CIA to keep tabs on.

“The agency has extremely limited access to the country — no American embassy is open to provide diplomatic cover — and Iran’s intelligence services have spent nearly four decades trying to counter American espionage and covert operations,” the article noted.

So the Times has apparently made it the newspaper’s mission to make the agency’s work much more difficult and far more dangerous by publicly identifying the man in charge of its covert operations in the Persian country. The paper’s rationale? The report’s authors claimed that because the newspaper already outed D’Andrea in 2015 as the official in charge of a CIA drone program, ignoring desperate pleas from the CIA at the time to keep his name secret in order to protect both the agent and overall national security, it was kosher to out him as the agency’s new Iran chief in 2017.

Here’s what the Times article says (emphasis added):

The C.I.A. declined to comment on Mr. D’Andrea’s role, saying it does not discuss the identities or work of clandestine officials. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because Mr. D’Andrea remains undercover, as do many senior officials based at the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va. Mr. Eatinger did not use his name. The New York Times is naming Mr. D’Andrea because his identity was previously published in news reports, and he is leading an important new administration initiative against Iran.
The bolded portion of the excerpt above links to a piece dated April 25, 2015, in which D’Andrea is identified as the man in charge of growing the CIA’s drone programs in Yemen and Pakistan. But the paper’s real reason for outing D’Andrea, who was depicted as a character known only as “The Wolf” in the film “Zero Dark Thirty,” is that he’s an Iran hawk likely to oppose the previous administration’s attempts to normalize the nation by giving it billions of dollars, trading it terrorists for hostages, and blessing its nuclear program.

The Times‘s flimsy rationale doesn’t make sense. Just because the paper said he was in charge of handling drone strikes in a few other countries in a two-year-old article doesn’t justify outing him as the CIA’s top spy in a country that is now considered to be the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

As The Israel Project’s Omri Ceren pointed out on Twitter, the fact that the CIA officials who spoke to the Times did so under the condition of anonymity because D’Andrea is still undercover means that the newspaper article is indeed outing him. And his safety is now likely in jeopardy thanks to the Times.

 Omri Ceren @omriceren
"Mr. D'Andrea remains undercover... The New York Times is naming Mr. D'Andrea"
10:56 AM - 2 Jun 2017
  65 65 Retweets   38 38 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
 Omri Ceren @omriceren
Iran proxies kidnapped & tortured to death CIA's Lebanon station chief. Mailed US officials tapes of the torture
10:16 AM - 2 Jun 2017
  123 123 Retweets   70 70 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
In 1984, longtime CIA operative Bill Buckley, who was working as the agency’s station chief in Lebanon, was kidnapped by Hezbollah and tortured to death. In 2011, over a dozen CIA spies were captured in Lebanon by the terrorist group Hezbollah. The spies were reportedly working to uncover details about Iran’s nuclear program at the time. In 2010, the CIA’s bureau chief in Afghanistan, who was at the time tracking down leads on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden as well as Al Qaeda cells throughout the world, was forced to leave the country after his name was released. And just a year after that, the Obama administration accidentally included the name of the CIA’s Kabul station chief in a press release, exposing the undercover agent to possible kidnapping or assassination by Islamic terrorist groups.

In 2003, after the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame was revealed in an article by journalist Robert Novak, congressional Democrats demanded criminal investigations and eventual prison time for the individual responsible for leaking Plame’s name. No elected Democrats have yet called for a criminal investigation to determine who illegally leaked the name of the CIA’s top spy overseeing U.S. efforts in Iran.

Bre Payton is a staff writer at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter.
116  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Robbery" in Manila Casino on: June 02, 2017, 11:58:08 AM

Robbery. Sure. rolleyes

117  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Best of Hillary-Huma emails, Fly w/ Mrs O? No. Take Separate Planes, "Of Course" on: June 02, 2017, 11:40:44 AM
TRUMP is KILLING the Planet!!!!111!!!!!1!!!!

Never mind what the left's "elites" actually do.

Separate-planes should be the middle name of both of Hillary and Michelle, no disrespect intended, they've earned it.

Nice thing about the private server is that she thought we would never see stuff like this, revealing an ugly peak through the window into her miserable, privileged soul.

Secure, luxurious, expensive government aircraft  was all set for Mrs. Clinton's travel.  Instead she anssers,

Hillary to Huma, July 9, 2011
"Is is ok that we and Mrs O take on two separate planes?"

"I would rather have our own of course."

118  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The real collusion on: June 02, 2017, 11:01:21 AM

The real collusion

Maybe it will be remembered as the weekend when, at long last, the media-Democrat complex overplayed its hand on the “Collusion with Russia” narrative. They are still having so much fun with the new “Jared back-channel to the Kremlin” angle, they appear not to realize it destroys their collusion yarn.

Their giddiness is understandable. The new story is irresistible: President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in a December 2016 Trump Tower meeting with the ubiquitous Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, discussed setting up a communications “back-channel” between the incoming administration and the Kremlin.

There is now the inevitable Kush-said-Kis-said over exactly who proposed the back-channel. For Trump’s critics, the meeting itself, as well as the contemplated (but apparently never consummated) line-of-communications, are a twofer against Trump: a) the amateurish attempt to insulate the transition’s discussions with an important foreign power from monitoring by the Obama intelligence agencies, and, b) the naïve sense that the Russians would keep their discussions discrete rather than humiliate Trump at the first opportunity. 

As if that were not enough, more cause for media-Democrat excitement: Reports that Kushner’s outreach to Kislyak resulted in the former’s being passed along to a shady Russian banker—a close Putin crony with roots in Russia’s intelligence services.

For anti-Trumpers of all ideological stripes, the story is a much needed gap-filler. For all the hype in D.C. and the Democrats’ coastal enclaves, the collusion story is flagging in most of the country. It lacks what a scandal needs to sustain itself: evidence. There is none: not when it comes to anything concrete that the Trump campaign may have done to aid and abet the Russian “interference in the election” project―a project that, though probably real, is more a matter of educated intelligence conjecture than slam-dunk courtroom proof.

For anti-Trumpers of all ideological stripes, the story is a much needed gap-filler. For all the hype in D.C. and the Democrats’ coastal enclaves, the collusion story is flagging in most of the country. It lacks what a scandal needs to sustain itself: evidence.
The latest episode in the Trump-Kislyak follies may divert attention from this omission for a few days. But sooner or later the new angle must be recognized for what it logically is: the death knell of the collusion narrative. Once that dawns on the commentariat, maybe we can finally get around the real collusion story of the 2016 campaign: The enlistment of the U.S. government’s law-enforcement and security services in the political campaign to elect Hillary Clinton.

Let’s start with the ongoing collusion farce. National-security conservatives harbored pre-existing reservations about Donald Trump that were exacerbated by his Putin-friendly rhetoric on the campaign trail. It is no secret that many conservatives who supported Trump in November―or at least voted against Hillary Clinton―preferred other GOP candidates. All that said, we’ve found the collusion story risible for two reasons.

First, to repeat, there is no there there. The “there” we have is a campaign by politicized intelligence operatives to leak classified information selectively, in a manner that is maximally damaging to the new administration. Democrats and their media friends have delighted in this shameful game, in which the press frets over imaginary crimes while colluding in the actual felony disclosure of intelligence. Such is their zeal, though, that we can rest assured we’d already have been told about any real evidence of Trump collusion in the Russian 2016 campaign project. Instead, after multiple investigations, a highly touted (and thinly sourced) report by three intel agencies (FBI, CIA and NSA), and a torrent of leaks, they’ve come up with exactly nothing.

Second, the eight-year Obama record is one of steadfastly denying that Russia posed a profound threat, and of appeasing the Kremlin at every turn. This even included a hot-mic moment when Obama explicitly committed to accommodate Putin―to America’s detriment―on missile defense.

It could scarcely be more manifest that the collusion narrative is strictly political. Were that not the case, there would be no bigger scandal than the Clinton Foundation dealings with Russia that lined Bill and Hillary Clinton’s pockets while the Russians walked away with major American uranium reserves.

The truth of the matter is that Obama, the Democrats, and their media megaphone had no interest in Russian aggression and duplicity until they needed a scapegoat to blame for their dreadful nominee’s dreadful campaign.
The truth of the matter is that Obama, the Democrats, and their media megaphone had no interest in Russian aggression and duplicity until they needed a scapegoat to blame for their dreadful nominee’s dreadful campaign. Until the fall and The Fall, the Left’s default mode was to ridicule Republicans and conservatives who took Putin’s provocations seriously―like Obama’s juvenile jab about the 1980s wanting its foreign policy back when, at a 2012 debate, Mitt Romney correctly cited Russia as a major geo-political menace.

Palpably, the point of the collusion storyline is to damage Trump politically. It is not good faith alarm over Putin’s regime.

The latest revelation about Kushner’s contacts with Russia underscores the emptiness of the collusion narrative. The contacts took place weeks after the election was over. Put aside the Trump transition’s foolishness in deputizing the young, green Kushner to negotiate with Kislyak, a wily former Soviet apparatchik. We’re talking collusion in the election here. If there had been such collusion―if the story the Left has been peddling for six months were true―there would have been no need for a discussion in December about opening communications channels. The lines of communication would long have been up and running.

Thus, the latest Kushner brouhaha strongly suggests that the Trump campaign did not have a collusive relationship with Kremlin operatives during the 2016 campaign, much less one specifically aimed at influencing the 2016 campaign.

Of course, that hardly means there was no collusion.

Kushner’s Trump transition companion at the December 2016 meeting with Kislyak was none other than retired army General Michael Flynn. His presence is significant, but not because of the now familiar Flynn-as-Putin-puppet caricature.

Flynn was Donald Trump’s top adviser in the 2016 campaign, particularly regarding intelligence about the threats confronting the United States throughout the world. He had also been the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until Obama fired him in 2014. Flynn’s conflict with the White House boiled down to one thing: He believed the administration had politicized the intelligence community―i.e., that Obama’s top intelligence officials were altering fact-based assessments made by the analysts in their agencies in order to support rosy administration narratives that downplayed threats to the United States.

Flynn laid this case out in the bestselling 2016 book he co-authored with historian Michael Ledeen, The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies. Remarkably, despite Flynn’s travails, his book is virtually never mentioned in the collusion coverage.

Or maybe it’s not so remarkable. After all, Flynn’s book argues that the Putin regime, along with its Iranian ally, forms the core of a global challenge that confronts the United States on multiple fronts, including through the jihadist groups it supports. That is, Flynn’s book not only undermines the “Putin puppet” claims; it contends that Obama’s foreign policy was an abject failure in refusing to factor the reality of Russian hostility into dealings with the Kremlin on areas of mutual interest. 

The Field of Fight also includes passages like this one:

In 2014, I was fired as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency after telling a congressional committee that we were not as safe as we had been a few years back. Others who want to tell the truth about the war are fighting back against their censors. In the late summer of 2015, dozens of military analysts protested that their superiors at CENTCOM—the Central Command for the war in the Middle East—were blocking or altering their reports on the true course of events. That allegation was then investigated by the Pentagon’s inspector general. The story was leaked, and congressional hearings were held. This book shows that the censorship isn’t new; it has been going on for years, and threatens our ability to win.
It is a theme of Flynn’s argument that the Obama administration put American intelligence―its credibility and its capacity to shape narratives―in the service of the Obama political agenda. Can there be any doubt that this is true?

Do we really need to wonder whether our intelligence agencies were exploited this way in 2016 when it is undeniable that they were so exploited in 2012? Do we really need a reminder that during the two months between September 11, 2012, and Election Day, when Obama was locked in a tight race, the White House and the intelligence community colluded to defraud the electorate into believing the Benghazi massacre was the result of a “protest” run amok over an anti-Muslim video, rather than an epic failure of Obama’s policy of empowering sharia-supremacists in Libya?

So what do we know about the 2016 election so far?


The Obama Justice Department bent over backwards to avoid charging Hillary Clinton with patent violations of law―involving mountainous evidence of the mishandling of classified emails and destruction of thousands of government records―while simultaneously investigating the Trump campaign with great zeal over what appears to be vague suspicion.

The Obama White House, State Department and intelligence community shrouded the Iran deal in secrecy, hiding risible terms, cash ransom payments to the mullahs, and Tehran’s violations, in order to preserve the arrangement without harming Clinton’s campaign.

The NSA and FBI have both been cited by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for flouting court-ordered restrictions against accessing and exploiting intelligence about Americans gathered under foreign intelligence-collection authorities.

Foreign intelligence-collection authorities were used to investigate Trump campaign and transition officials, at least some of whose identities were “unmasked” even though they should presumptively have been concealed under court-ordered restrictions.

The New York Times, based on classified leaks, reported that the FBI was consulting with “Obama advisers” while the Bureau investigated Flynn’s communications with Kislyak—communications that were appropriate given that Flynn, as Trump’s incoming national security adviser, was communicating with various foreign officials as the new administration prepared to take power. “Obama officials” pressed the FBI on whether Flynn had discussed a “quid pro quo” with Kislyak—i.e., the possible dropping of sanctions in exchange for Russian cooperation of some kind. The FBI conceded that he had not.

In a strangely timed order just days before his administration ended, President Obama loosened the restrictions on access to raw intelligence, allowing the NSA to share it throughout the community of intelligence agencies before sanitizing it to protect American identities in accordance with privacy protections. This would geometrically increase the likelihood of leaks of classified information involving American citizens.

A former Obama Defense Department official, Evelyn Farkas, let slip in an interview that the administration and its allies were encouraging Congress to demand disclosure of classified information, especially intelligence pertaining to Trump and alleged ties to Russia. This, again, would dramatically enhance the likelihood of selective, unlawful disclosures of top-secret intelligence. Or, as Ms. Farkas put it, “That’s why you have all the leaking.”

Finally—I know you’ll be shocked to hear this—there has been a spate of classified leaks since Election Day, clearly designed to undermine Trump’s capacity to govern and advance the agenda on which he campaigned.

Should Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn have met with the Russian ambassador without alerting the Obama Administration and its intelligence apparatus? No. They should have known our spies would learn about their communications by monitoring Russian operatives―and, probably, that those Russian operatives would put out misinformation about the meeting for the purpose of embarrassing Trump. (Memo to POTUS: for the umpty-umpth time, Russia is not your friend.) 

But to concede that Kushner and Flynn used bad judgment is not to say they didn’t have their reasons. There is abundant cause for concern that the Obama administration tore down the wall between the missions of law-enforcement and foreign-intelligence, on one side, and partisan politics, on the other. The White House and its politicized security services wanted Hillary Clinton to become president, and they do not want to let Donald Trump be president.

There’s a collusion story here, but it’s got nothing to do with Russia.

About the Author: Andrew C. McCarthy

Andrew C. McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy is a former chief assistant U.S. attorney best known for successfully prosecuting the “Blind Sheikh” (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven other jihadists for waging a terrorist war against the United States – a war that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a subsequent plot to bomb New York City landmarks. He is a recipient of the Justice Department’s highest honors, helped supervise the command-post near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan following the 9/11 attacks, and later served as an adviser to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. His several popular books include the New York Times bestsellers Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. He is a senior fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor at National Review. He is a frequent guest commentator on national security, law, politics, and culture in national media, and his columns and essays also appear regularly in The New Criterion, PJ Media, and other major publications.
119  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Left Freaks Out As Everything It Tries Makes It Look Stupider on: June 02, 2017, 10:38:54 AM

The Left Freaks Out As Everything It Tries Makes It Look Stupider
Kurt  Schlichter Kurt Schlichter |Posted: Jun 01, 2017 12:01 AM 

Name one normal person who has watched the leftist freak out and said, “Yeah, I’m convinced. That severed Trump head Kathy Griffin is hauling around? Really makes you think.” It sure does – normal people think, “Thank you, Lord, for helping America dodge that drunken, malignant bullet the liberals fired at us.”

But then nothing the liberals have done since last November’s humiliation has sought to expand the Democrats’ constricted base to include us normals. Instead, everything they have done seems designed solely to appeal to the coastal snobs and welfare cheats who are already committed to liberal fascism, and to demonstrate to everyone else how right we were to reject that pant-suited Chavez wannbe.

When you watch what they’re doing in response to normal Americans standing up and asserting the right to govern ourselves, you see the progressives making the losers’ choice at every turn. From concocting elaborate Russian fantasies – I keep expecting someone to demand Trump make Moscow General Hospital release his original birth certificate – to applauding performance art designed to make regular people gag, they choose wrong. And we can safely point this out because they’re too smug and/or stupid to listen.

This has been going on for a long time. A few years ago it was their collective swoon over the scuzzy shenanigans of the filthy lowlifes of what they called the “Occupy Movement.” But that Astroturf farce was only a “movement” to the extent that progs imagined that footage of its coterie of clowns executing bowel movements against cop cars was going to win over normal people.

Okay, that didn't work, so the next brainstorm was to decide to refuse to recognize the results of the 2016 election – no doubt the people who left the Democrats would be convinced to return to a party that has made its centerpiece #TheResistance to what those voters voted for. And how better to appeal to the regular folks who chose Trump over Felonia von Pantsuit than, “Why, let's have thousands of hideous crones wearing hats evoking genitalia march around talking about how working class men are bad.”

Yeah, no. That failed too. Have you seen any v-caps lately? Gyno headgear is now “La Macarena” of political novelty acts.

When wearing lady parts on their pointy skulls somehow didn't make normal Americans think, "These are sane people and I should take one of their brochures to learn more about their political teachings," they got onto the Russia kick. It was sure great to see liberals finally taking the side of the USA against Russia for the first time since, you know, ever.

But these born-again, left-wing McCarthys, without Tailgunner Joe’s trademark sanity or smarts, have somehow managed not to turn normal Americans into a mob demanding impeachment. It didn't help that the Russia-mania media reports are always 99 percent baloney. Anonymous bombshells like Trump planning to give Putin our missile codes in order to nuke Planned Parenthood always end up being walked back to something like, “Donald Trump once watched Rush Hour 2 on pay-per-view and totally laughed more at Jackie Chan than Chris Tucker because RACISM!"

But Russia spazzing doesn't create jobs, and it doesn't address the underlying issues that led people who could've been voting for Hillary to diss her. So, especially after 12 months with no leaks of damning evidence and the reluctant admissions even from leading Democrats that there is no evidence of TRUMP LOVES PUTIN BECAUSE TREASON! at all, damning or otherwise, no one cares who wasn’t already offended to the core by normal people daring to make themselves heard last November.

And having that insane political Sasquatch wandering out of the woods every once in a while to insist that she actually won the election does not help. Which is why we should heartily encourage her to continue her bizarre quest for the presidency. Who knows, it might just work – she does finally win in 2020 in the new prequel to my novel People’s Republic, Indian Country, and promptly destroys our country just as we feared she would had she not been so humiliatingly crushed.

Lately liberals have tried some new tricks. One is feigning a newfound dislike of violence. A Republican smacking around a liberal reporter is the worst thing on earth. Then the aforementioned Kathy Griffin rises from her cesspool of obscurity with a pic of her holding Trump’s bloody noggin in eager expectation of liberal acclamation because, well, Trump.

Nobody's buying it (including, to her credit, Chelsea Clinton).

Fun story: As a young lawyer in a big LA firm 20+ years ago, Kathy Griffin came in as a temp – that was before she hit it mediocre. I remember talking to her once and she was pleasant enough, but little did I know someday she’d be both on CNN and channeling ISIS.

Then we had the latest liberal Great Right Hope failure when that jerk in Portland turned out not to be a conservative (They never are) but a Sanders supporter. Regardless of his politics, we normals still want him to feel the burn … in the electric chair.

The funniest liberal pose is “Patriot Liberal,” and that's their newest thing. They'll start talking to you about honor and patriotism and Country First and the flag, but they do it hilariously awkwardly, like how a slow child walks for the first time. They’re just not used to taking America’s side – or, more accurately, pretending to.

But none of it's working. The numbers are not shifting. Donald Trump remains about as popular as he was on Election Day, and leftists isolated in their coastal echo chambers just don't understand that normal people really don't get upset when our president tells the deadbeat Germans that before they spend their money on rape-inclined foreigners they need to keep their word to the people whose blood and treasure defends them. If you think the American people are going to be upset because the Euros are pouting about Donald Trump demanding that the Krauts ... wait for it … pay their fair share, you've probably never met a real American.

Apparently, only rich fellow Americans must “pay their fair share.” Rich, liberal globalists from other countries who buy into the climate change scam, well, apparently they get a pass on paying their fair share. Liberals always do “Country First” wrong.

It used to be easy to feel like we were losing with all the noise and lies in the media, but not so much anymore. We are woke to the okey-doke; we know we’re supposed to be the marks and we just aren’t playing along with the scam. We get that the media lies. We get that liberals’ only concern is their own power. And now we’re laughing at them.
120  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: IC too big? on: June 01, 2017, 08:53:52 PM

In dire need of major cuts. For a multitude of reasons, most importantly, it's threat to American freedom.
121  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: May 31, 2017, 06:11:11 PM
I would like to thank Ms. Griffin for reminding the American public of what the left is really like.

Kathy Griffin Scolds Elisabeth Hasselbeck Over Obama Question: ‘Take It Down A Notch, B*tch!’
by James Crugnale | 9:19 am, May 18th, 2012
During a segment on Bravo’s Kathy on Thursday, Kathy Griffin tore into Elisabeth Hasselbeck‘s critical question to President Obama on The View about gay marriage, where Hasselbeck asked the president how he would “move things forward any more than Mitt Romney.” With Hasselbeck’s “attitude to the president, who was a Harvard Law professor, I’m, like, take it down a notch, bitch,” Griffin said.

“That body language,” Griffin added, “I don’t like that. I don’t like Jan Brewer in Arizona going like this to the President on the tarmac. I don’t like that. When I was on The View, Barbara Walters said you respect the office.”

If the left didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

I take it you have seen Brietbart today and thus this :
Could anyone imagine the outrage if someone did this with Baraq? ??  The LEFT media would be 24/7 manic rants screaming and yelling for that person to be fired and shunned and never to work again and to get on his or her knees and beg to forgiven.

ccp,  I heard the apology before I saw the picture.  Didn't know who she was by name but now I recognize her.

While there is a huge double standard, we just found out there is a line leftists shouldn't cross.  This actually did get a reaction and outrage from almost all.

The apology was quite well written and delivered but I think the last line of her apology was that she 'went too far'.  Went too far??  That line opens more questions than answers.  Behead without the blood on it was okay?  Stabbed, shot, hung okay?

She has been fired by CNN by the time of this writing I think.  A (leftist) comic worked for CNN?  Why??

I don't know the totality of her work.  ALways left, sometimes funny, I would guess. I don't think much of apologies.  Apologizing is better than not, but doesn't erase the act.  People shouldn't normally lose a lifetime of achievements for one mistake, but it happens.  She apologized because she saw the reaction, not because she thought it was wrong.  The apology was for career survival, self interest, not because they don't all wish him dead.  The firing was CNN doing the same.  Subtle leftism on the networks is what works, not the outrageous stuff.  This incident is memorable and will symbolize the horrible treatment this President gets.  The fact that leftists operatives posing as manstream media, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times all have 90% coverage of Trump in the subtle form, just reporting the news, is far more effective.

It is hurtful to Melania, 11 year old Barron and others.  It is probably helpful to Trump's reelection for the derangement syndrome to gain a graphic image.  It could inspire one more crazy person to do a bad thing.

Mostly it means two more days or a week that healthcare and tax reform fail to gain momentum. 
122  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: May 31, 2017, 05:49:41 PM
"I think you overlook the domestic threat of the right in your focus on the left."

Do tell.
123  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: May 30, 2017, 04:34:00 PM

Another author who appears to have been in a coma the last eight years.
124  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Ice caps not receding? on: May 30, 2017, 11:59:51 AM
I was told that the science was settled.

Too good to not expand, repeat and distribute...

quote author=Crafty_Dog link=topic=1118.msg103968#msg103968 date=1496028555]
Contrary to my gut impression of ships sailing a north passage, Russian activities in the Arctic etc.

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all.

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:

“Climate change is melting more than just the polar ice caps”

“2020: Antarctic ice shelf could collapse”

“An Arctic ice cap’s shockingly rapid slide into the sea”

The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.

To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming.

The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.

125  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Comey FBI broke own rules spying on Americans, Trump team on: May 30, 2017, 11:53:38 AM

JAMES ROSEN: [House Democratic Leader] Pelosi confessed ignorance of this week's disclosure that the National Security Agency for at least five years under the Obama administration systematically violated Americans' Fourth Amendment rights...

Civil liberties groups said the disclosures should factor into lawmakers' decision at year's end about whether to reauthorize the NSA collection program that witnessed the abuses...

The sheer scale of the 4th Amendment violations is staggering, as was the sternness of the rebuke of the Obama administration by the FISA court, which ordinarily approves 99.9% of the government's request.

As of a few minutes ago, this story had not been covered by the Washington Post, the New York Times or any of the three broadcast networks.

Did professional journalist Martha Raddatz cover it?
126  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Alien Invasion: Thousands of Foreigners Registered to Vote (and Voting) in VA. on: May 30, 2017, 11:44:43 AM

127  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Lack of Judicial Impartiality Threatens Rule of Law on: May 30, 2017, 11:36:52 AM
Lack of Judicial Impartiality Threatens Rule of Law

By Roger Kimball| May 28th, 2017

Why do judges wear black robes? It’s a question few judges today seem to be asking themselves.

It certainly appears not to have troubled the mind of Chief Judge Roger Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals who, it seems, must instead be a student of Jorge Luis Borges. A couple of days ago, Judge Gregory, writing for the majority, upheld a lower court’s decision against President Trump’s revised Executive Order imposing a temporary travel ban from a handful of countries identified as hotbeds of terrorist activity. As Byron York points out, the decision broke 10 to 3 along partisan lines: the 10 judges who decided against the travel ban were appointed by Presidents Clinton or Obama, the 3 judges who supported the ban were appointed by one of the Bushes.

The rank partisanship on display is as disgusting as it is worrisome: a partisan judiciary is not a judicious judiciary. It is, on the contrary, a judiciary that dispenses its decisions based not on what you have done or left undone but on who you are. It is a government of men, not laws.

But the most extraordinary thing about the majority decision is not its partisanship but the personal nature of the opinion it expresses. It applies to Donald Trump and to Donald Trump only. As York notes,

The majority’s decision, as laid out by Gregory, suggests a mind-bending possibility: If the Trump executive order, every single word of it, were issued by another president who had not made such statements on the campaign trail, the court would find it constitutional.
This is where Borges comes in. In “Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote,” Borges celebrates the stupendous labor of a man who endeavored to produce a book that would be identical—”word for word and line for line”— to Cervantes’ great novel. Menard never managed more than a fragment. But Borges is surely right that though “the text of Cervantes and that of Menard are verbally identical,” the works are in fact very different. For one thing, what was written in the seventeenth century by a Catholic ex-soldier is of necessity very different from what was written in the twentieth century by a cosmopolitan, world-weary intellectual. Their different personal histories infuse their words with very different assumptions. Then there is the matter of style. “The archaic style of Menard . . . suffers from a certain affectation. Not so that of his precursor, who handles easily the ordinary Spanish of his time.” Borges spins an amusing and thought provoking epistemological tale with this fiction.

Until yesterday, I hadn’t appreciated its application to the workings of the judiciary. Judge Gregory enlightened me about that. In his opinion for the court, Judge Gregory charges that although the travel ban invokes national security, “in context” it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

Context, eh? What Judge Gregory means is that Donald Trump, or at least some people associated with Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign, said things about Muslims or other prospective immigrants with which Judge Gregory disagrees. Ergo anything that Donald Trump’s administration orders with respect to immigration is, ipso facto, tainted.

What Trump’s travel ban actually said is unexceptionable. Nor can any candid person doubt the President’s authority to intervene dispositively on who may and who may not enter the United States. The law is unambiguous:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
The majority opinion of the Fourth Circuit makes explicit what was already implicit in the lower court interventions against the administration’s efforts to “improve the screening and vetting protocols” in order to “protect the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” At issue is not the Constitutionality of the Executive Order but the person of Donald Trump. The effect of the ruling, as Andrew McCarthy observes, is to empower “both radical Islam and judicial imperialism.” In the immediate aftermath of yet another bloody jihadist attack—this one in Manchester, England—it is natural that we think mostly about the former, about the way the Fourth Circuit’s ruling makes us less safe by empowering radical Islam. Should we suffer another Orlando or San Berardino here, we can lay at least part of the blame at the doorstep of judges like Roger Gregory.

The harm such judicial supremacists do goes far beyond their particular rulings. It erodes the one thing that guarantees the place of the judiciary in a free society: widespread trust in the legitimacy, which is to say, the impartiality of its operation.
But although terrorism is certainly a legitimate and a pressing concern, in some ways it is McCarthy’s second item, the empowering of judicial imperialism or judicial supremacy, that is the bigger long-term concern. For what these recent decisions portend—the temporary restraining orders issued by left-leaning, blue-state District Judges as well as the Fourth Circuit’s en banc ruling—is an attack on the Constitutional separation of powers via an assertion of judicial triumphalism. And this brings me to my opening question: Why do judges wear fancy black robes? Former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, pondering that question, suggested that the attire “shows that all of us judges are engaged in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. We have a common responsibility.”

I think that’s about right. The somber black robes attest to the impartial majesty of the law.

But what happens if those wearing the robes betray that trust, that “common responsibility” to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law? Alexander Hamilton famously, and perhaps naively, described the judiciary as “the least dangerous branch,” reasoning that since the Court commanded neither money (as did Congress) nor the army (as did the Executive), therefore the Court would have to rely not on coercive power but merely the impressive spectacle of what Hamilton called “judgment.”

We’ve had plenty of experience to show us how drastically Hamilton underestimated the threat of an unfettered judiciary. It is worth reminding ourselves that several of his contemporaries were not so starry eyed about the Court. One of the anti-Federalists, for example, warned that the Constitution did not provide an effective mechanism for reining in judicial arrogance.

There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.
That, I submit, is pretty much where we are with judges like Roger Gregory. The harm such judicial supremacists do goes far beyond their particular rulings. It erodes the one thing that guarantees the place of the judiciary in a free society: widespread trust in the legitimacy, which is to say, the impartiality of its operation. The black robes are a symbol of that trust and the majesty that imbues it. The Fourth Circuit has just violated that trust in the most brutal and cavalier fashion, threatening to transform those somber black robes from an emblem of high office into costume worn by impersonators.

To this extent, Hamilton was right: in our society the respect of the judiciary depends not on its deployment of coercion but prestige. As Glenn Reynolds observed in commenting on this deeply misguided ruling by the Fourth Circuit, “The judiciary’s prestige-well is going to dry up pretty fast at this rate.” And then?

About the Author: Roger Kimball
Roger Kimball
Roger Kimball is Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion and President and Publisher of Encounter Books. Mr. Kimball lectures widely and has appeared on national radio and television programs as well as the BBC. He is represented by Writers' Representatives, who can provide details about booking him. Mr. Kimball's latest book is The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augustine's Press, 2012). He is also the author of The Rape of the Masters (Encounter), Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse (Ivan R. Dee), and Art's Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity (Ivan R. Dee). Other titles by Mr. Kimball include The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America (Encounter) and Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age (Ivan R. Dee). Mr. Kimball is also the author ofTenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education (HarperCollins). A new edition of Tenured Radicals, revised and expanded, was published by Ivan R. Dee in 2008. Mr. Kimball is a frequent contributor to many publications here and in England, including The New Criterion, The Times Literary Supplement, Modern Painters, Literary Review, The Wall Street Journal, The Public Interest, Commentary, The Spectator, The New York Times Book Review, The Sunday Telegraph, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, National Review, and The National Interest.
128  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Macron warns Putin on: May 29, 2017, 10:36:21 PM
Russia has committed many terrible war crimes in Syria.  I am quite fine with Macron showing some spine.

I'm sure Putin took him very seriously.  rolleyes
129  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Liberals Are Shocked To Find We’re Starting To Hate Them Right Back on: May 29, 2017, 11:41:23 AM

Liberals Are Shocked To Find We’re Starting To Hate Them Right Back
Kurt  Schlichter  |Posted: May 29, 2017 12:01 AM 
Liberals Are Shocked To Find We’re Starting To Hate Them Right Back

I know it’s theoretically wrong for a Republican candidate to smack around an annoying liberal journalist, but that still doesn’t mean that I care. Our ability to care is a finite resource, and, in the vast scheme of things, millions of us have chosen to devote exactly none of it toward caring enough to engage in fussy self-flagellation because of what happened to Slappy La Brokenshades.

Sorry, not sorry.

And that’s not a good thing, not by any measure, but it is a real thing. Liberals have chosen to coarsen our culture. Their validation and encouragement of raw hate, their flouting of laws (Hi leakers! Hi Hillary!) and their utter refusal to accept democratic outcomes they disapprove of have consequences. What is itself so surprising is how liberals and their media rentboyz are so surprised to find that we normals are beginning to feel about them the way they feel about us – and that we’re starting to act on it. If you hate us, guess what?

We’re going to start hating you right back.

Cue the boring moralizing and sanctimonious whimpering of the femmy, bow-tied, submissive branch of conservatism whose obsolete members were shocked to find themselves left behind by the masses to whom these geeks’ sinecures were not the most important objective of the movement. This is where they sniff, “We’re better than that,” and one has to ask ,“Who’s we?” Because, by nature, people are not better than that. They are not designed to sit back and take it while they are abused, condescended to, and told by a classless ruling class that there are now two sets of rules and – guess what? –the old rules are only going to be enforced against them.

We don’t like the new rules – I’d sure prefer a society where no one was getting attacked, having walked through the ruins of a country that took that path – but we normals didn’t choose the new rules. The left did. It gave us Ferguson, Middlebury College, Berkeley, and “Punch a Nazi” – which, conveniently for the left, translates as “punch normals.” And many of us have had personal experiences with this New Hate – jobs lost, hassles, and worse. Some scumbags at an anti-Trump rally attacked my friend and horribly injured his dog. His freaking dog.

So when we start to adopt their rules, they’re shocked? Have they ever met human beings before? It’s not a surprise. It’s inevitable.

Team Fredocon, when they aren’t, “Oh well, I never!-ing” about Trump and his uncouth supporters, moan about the threat of “Whataboutism,” the tendency for people to explain their sub-optimal behavior by asking, “What about so-and-so? He did the same thing and you didn’t care.” But while “whataboutism” may be a logical fallacy, it’s still a devastatingly compelling argument.

Humans – especially normal Americans – won’t tolerate a double standard. But double standards apply all the time to liberals – they do it and it’s fine, but we do it and it’s Armageddon. The same jerks screaming for O‘Reilly’s scalp worship Bill Clinton and his drunken, perv-enabling pseudo-wife.

Or take the Trump-Russia black hole of idiocy – please. Remember how Obama whispered to the Russkies, “I'll have more flexibility after election” and that was cool? But – according to an anonymous source reading a bar tab over the phone to some credulous WaPo hack – one of Trump’s relatives ordered a vodka once and it’s TREASON TREASON TREASON!!!!!!

It certainly applies to, “What about when they hit conservatives with a lock in a sock and the liberal media didn’t care?” Yeah, what about that? Where was the sackcloth and ashes act from Schumer, Pelosi, and Felonia von Pantsuit when our side was being bloodied and beaten? There wasn’t one, because the left supports us getting bloodied and beaten. It likes the zesty zing of violence. It makes them feel big and tough and edgy, except that it starts being a heck of a lot less fun when we right-wingers start adopting the same rules and punching back.

The left is shocked that the right has now stopped caring about the old rules, since for so long the left relied on the right to subordinate its human instincts and conform to those rules even when the left ignored them. We refused to stoop to their level, and for a long time, we were “better than that.” But you can only have one side being “better than that” for so long before people get sick of being the butt of the hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is poison not because it makes people stop knowing right from wrong, but because it makes its victims stop caring about right and wrong. Ben Jacobs got smacked around, and millions of us just don’t give a damn.

We all know it was wrong for Greg Gianforte to beat up Ben Jacobs. But we also know the general attitude of the media is that when we conservatives get beat-up by leftists it’s perfectly excusable – even laudable – and thanks to the fact that Twitter is forever, we now know that Ben Jacobs himself specifically thinks it’s A-OK to slug conservative kids. So can someone tell me why anyone should be shocked that we conservatives refuse to devote one iota of caring to poor Ben’s wedgie?

This isn’t a good thing. This is nothing to be proud of. We should not be happy that our society is heading toward the lowest common denominator, which itself is in freefall. But the alternative is worse. Should we allow ourselves to continue to be figuratively and literally beaten up while smiling at our own purity, secure in the knowledge that even though our dignity and freedom are stripped from us, we have not fought back? Not happening. Letting these bastards play by their own rules, and thereby crush us, seems a pretty high price to pay just to gain the approval of the smug and sanctimonious David Frums and John Kasichs of the world.

We conservatives have been warning for a long time that liberals are not going to like it when everyone plays by the new rules, and – surprise! – they don’t. But guess what? Most of us don’t like the new rules either. Yet it’s ridiculous to expect human beings to remain in perpetual denial about the situation they face, and to forever live under a double standard that results in their faces getting pressed into the dirt.

The hypocrisy has become intolerable, and we have stopped tolerating it. This is just the beginning of the reaction, and - make no mistake – this entire situation is a bad thing. Our society is making choices that can lead only to ruin (and my new novel describing the consequences drops later this week).

Lincoln mentioned “the better angels of our nature” – also at a time when Democrats were rejecting the rule of law in order to promote their subjugation of those they considered lesser beings – and the important thing to note is that “angels” is plural. You need two angels, not one angel and one demon. But that’s what we have, and if it doesn’t change we’ll have two demons, and everyone should care about that.
130  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Emir Abdelkader on: May 29, 2017, 01:49:05 AM
I missed where the lefty drivel ended.

After some lefty drivel
", , , So I suspect it’s time to raise the ghost of a man known as the Emir Abdelkader – Muslim, Sufi, sheikh, ferocious warrior, humanist, mystic, protector of his people against Western barbarism, protector of Christians against Muslim barbarism, so brave that the Algerian state insisted his bones were brought home from his beloved Damascus, so noble that Abe Lincoln sent him a pair of Colt pistols and the French gave him the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour. He loved education, he admired the Greek philosophers, he forbade his fighters to destroy books, he worshipped a religion which believed – so he thought – in human rights. But hands up all readers who know the name of Abdelkader.

We should think of him now more than ever. He was not a “moderate” because he fought back savagely against the French occupation of his land. He was not an extremist because, in his imprisonment at the Chateau d’Amboise, he talked of Christians and Muslims as brothers. He was supported by Victor Hugo and Lord Londonderry and earned the respect of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte (later Napoleon III) and the French state paid him a pension of 100,000 francs. He deserved it.

When the French invaded Algeria, Abdelkader Ibn Muhiedin al-Juzairi (Abdelkader, son of Muhiedin, the Algerian,1808-1883, for those who like obituaries) embarked on a successful guerrilla war against one of the best equipped armies in the Western world – and won. He set up his own state in western Algeria – Muslim but employing Christian and Jewish advisors – and created separate departments (defence, education, etc), which stretched as far as the Moroccan border. It even had its own currency, the “muhamediya”. He made peace with the French – a truce which the French broke by invading his lands yet again. Abdelkader demanded a priest to minister for his French prisoners, even giving them back their freedom when he had no food for them. The French sacked the Algerian towns they captured, a hundred Hadithas to suppress Abdelkader’s resistance. When at last he was defeated, he surrendered in honour – handing over his horse as a warrior – on the promise of exile in Alexandria or Acre. Again the French betrayed him, packing him off to prison in Toulon and then to the interior of France.
Muslim man comforts elderly Jewish woman in symbol of Manchester unity

    4 show all

Yet in his French exile, he preached peace and brotherhood and studied French and spoke of the wisdom of Plato and Socrates, Aristotle and Ptolemy and Averoes and later wrote a book, Call to the Intelligent, which should be available on every social media platform. He also, by the way, wrote a book on horses which proves he was ever an Arab in the saddle. But his courage was demonstrated yet again in Damascus in 1860 where he lived as an honoured exile. The Christian-Druze civil war in Lebanon had spread to Damascus where the Christian population found themselves surrounded by the Muslim Druze who arrived with Isis-like cruelty, brandishing swords and knives to slaughter their adversaries.

Abdelkader sent his Algerian Muslim guards – his personal militia – to bash their way through the mob and escort more than 10,000 Christians to his estate. And when the crowds with their knives arrived at his door, he greeted them with a speech which is still recited in the Middle East (though utterly ignored these days in the West). “You pitiful creatures!” he shouted. “Is this the way you honour the Prophet? God punish you! Shame on you, shame! The day will come when you will pay for this … I will not hand over a single Christian. They are my brothers. Get out of here or I’ll set my guards on you.”

Muslim historians claim Abdelkader saved 15,000 Christians, which may be a bit of an exaggeration. But here was a man for Muslims to emulate and Westerners to admire. His fury was expressed in words which would surely have been used today against the cult-like caliphate executioners of Isis. Of course, the “Christian” West would honour him at the time (although, interestingly, he received a letter of praise from the Muslim leader of wildly independent Chechnya). He was an “interfaith dialogue” man to please Pope Francis.

Abdelkader was invited to Paris. An American town was named after him – Elkader in Clayton County, Iowa, and it’s still there, population 1,273. Founded in the mid-19th century, it was natural to call your home after a man who was, was he not, honouring the Rights of Man of American Independence and the French Revolution? Abdelkader flirted with Freemasonry – most scholars believe he was not taken in – and loved science to such an extent that he accepted an invitation to the opening of the Suez Canal, which was surely an imperial rather than a primarily scientific project. Abdelkader met De Lesseps. He saw himself, one suspects, as Islam’s renaissance man, a man for all seasons, the Muslim for all people, an example rather than a saint, a philosopher rather than a priest.

But of course, Abdelkader’s native Algeria is a neighbour of Libya from where Salman Abedi’s family came, and Abdelkader died in Syria, whose assault by US aircraft – according to Abedi’s sister – was the reason he slaughtered the innocent of Manchester. And so geography contracts and history fades, and Abedi’s crime is, for now, more important than all of Abdelkader’s life and teaching and example. So for Mancunians, whether they tattoo bees onto themselves or merely buy flowers, why not pop into Manchester’s central library in St Peter’s Square and ask for Elsa Marsten’s The Compassionate Warrior or John Kiser’s Commander of the Faithful or, published just a few months ago, Mustapha Sherif’s L’Emir Abdelkader: Apotre de la fraternite?

They are no antidotes for sorrow or mourning. But they prove that Isis does not represent Islam and that a Muslim can earn the honour of the world.
131  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / U.S. to deploy 3rd carrier group to deter North Korea on: May 28, 2017, 12:12:15 PM

U.S. to deploy 3rd carrier group to deter strike North Korea
132  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Not-so-Great Britain on: May 28, 2017, 10:05:02 AM
133  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / 4th Circuit upholds injunction against Trump revised travel Executive Order on: May 27, 2017, 12:12:38 PM

4th Circuit upholds injunction against Trump revised travel Executive Order

Posted by William A. Jacobson      Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 2:24pm
Executive Order “in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination”
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the case en banc, has upheld substantially all of the Maryland District Court injunction against Trump’s revised travel Executive Order in an opinion (pdf.) dripping with politics. (Full embed at bottom of post).

The opinions (including concurring and dissenting) are 200 pages, so it will take some time to digest, but you’ll get the message from the opening paragraph:

“The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution, as the Supreme Court declared in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866), remains “a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.” And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs’ right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination. Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles—that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another. Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we affirm in substantial part the district court’s issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction as to Section 2(c) of the challenged Executive Order.”

The opinion is so bad, it’s hard to know where to start. Perhaps the best place is this completely foolish statement on page 17:

The Second Executive Order does not include any examples of individuals from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen committing terrorism-related offenses in the United States.

Sorry, respected and honored Judges, that’s not your call. That’s the President’s call, and the President doesn’t need to recite examples in an order or wait for people from these countries to engage in terrorism in the U.S.  (We know that people from these countries have in fact committed terrorist acts in the U.S., but that’s actually beside the point for the legal analysis. It is not up to the judges.)

The most egregious focus of the majority opinion was relying on Trump’s campaign statements (starting at page 18):

The First and Second Executive Orders were issued against a backdrop of public statements by the President and his advisors and representatives at different points in time, both before and after the election and President Trump’s assumption of office. We now recount certain of those statements….

The Court then goes on for several pages recounting news clippings and campaign statements. This is a task, the dissent correctly pointed out, that will have both a chilling effect on political speech and is legally irrelevant as to a specific Executive Order after taking office. The Court concluded that the national security justifications were a sham (page 52-60):

Based on this evidence, we find that Plaintiffs have more than plausibly alleged that EO-2’s stated national security interest was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious purpose. And having concluded that the “facially legitimate” reason proffered by the government is not “bona fide,” we no longer defer to that reason and instead may “look behind” EO-2….

The evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, creates a compelling case that EO-2’s primary purpose is religious. Then-candidate Trump’s campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States….

As a candidate, Trump also suggested that he would attempt to circumvent scrutiny of the Muslim ban by formulating it in terms of nationality, rather than religion….

These statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated both EO-1 and EO-2: President Trump’s desire to exclude Muslims from the United States. The statements also reveal President Trump’s intended means of effectuating the ban: by targeting majority-Muslim nations instead of Muslims explicitly….

EO-2 cannot be read in isolation from the statements of planning and purpose that accompanied it, particularly in light of the sheer number of statements, their nearly singular source, and the close connection they draw between the proposed Muslim ban and EO-2 itself.

The court concluded (page 69):

EO-2 cannot be divorced from the cohesive narrative linking it to the animus that inspired it. In light of this, we find that the reasonable observer would likely conclude that EO-2’s primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs. We therefore find that EO-2 likely fails Lemon’s purpose prong in violation of the Establishment Clause.22 Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in concluding that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.

The only part of the lower court injunction that was vacated was that part naming Trump personally:

“In light of the Supreme Court’s clear warning that such relief should be ordered only in the rarest of circumstances we find that the district court erred in issuing an injunction against the President himself. We therefore lift the injunction as to the President only. The court’s preliminary injunction shall otherwise remain fully intact.”

Three Judges (Niemeyer, Shedd, Agee) dissented:

While the [District] court acknowledged the President’s authority under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a) to enter the Order and also acknowledged that the national security reasons given on the face of the Order were legitimate, the court refused to apply Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), which held that courts are precluded from “look[ing] behind” “facially legitimate and bona fide” exercises of executive discretion in the immigration context to discern other possible purposes, id. at 770. Relying on statements made by candidate Trump during the presidential campaign, the district court construed the Executive Order to be directed against Muslims because of their religion and held therefore that it likely violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I conclude that the district court seriously erred (1) by refusing to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Mandel; (2) by fabricating a new proposition of law — indeed, a new rule — that provides for the consideration of campaign statements to recast a later-issued executive order; and (3) by radically extending Supreme Court Establishment Clause precedents…..

The majority reworks the district court’s analysis by applying Mandel, albeit contrary to its holding, to defer only to the facial legitimacy of the Order but not to its facial bona fides, despite the Mandel Court’s holding that “when the Executive exercises
this power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests” of the plaintiffs. Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770 (emphasis added). In addition, the majority, after violating Mandel, then adopts the same new rule of law adopted by the district court to consider candidate Trump’s campaign statements to find the Executive Order’s stated reasons “pretext[ual],” ante at 51, and then to rewrite the Order to find it in violation of the Establishment Clause. This too is unprecedented and unworkable.

The dissent took particular issue with the reliance by the majority on Trump’s campaign statements:

In affirming the district court’s ruling based on the Establishment Clause, the majority looks past the face of the Order’s statements on national security and immigration, which it concedes are neutral in terms of religion, and considers campaign statements made by candidate Trump to conclude that the Order denigrates Islam, in violation of the Establishment Clause. This approach (1) plainly violates the Supreme Court’s directive in Mandel; (2) adopts a new rule of law that uses campaign statements to recast the plain, unambiguous, and religiously neutral text of an executive order; and (3) radically extends the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause holdings…..

The Supreme Court surely will shudder at the majority’s adoption of this new rule that has no limits or bounds — one that transforms the majority’s criticisms of a candidate’s various campaign statements into a constitutional violation.

More to follow.
134  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hundreds Vote Illegally in North Carolina after Court Bans Election Integrity L on: May 27, 2017, 11:46:50 AM

Hundreds Vote Illegally in North Carolina after Court Bans Election Integrity Law

APRIL 26, 2017
Less than a year after a federal appellate court sided with the Obama administration to strike down North Carolina’s election integrity reforms, a state audit reveals that hundreds of votes were illegally cast by felons and non-citizens in just one election. Voter impersonation, double voting and irregularities in absentee ballots sent via mail also tainted the election, according to the investigation conducted by the North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE). The probe analyzed records from the 2016 general election.

State auditors found that about 500 ineligible people voted in 2016, more than 440 of them felons. Dozens of non-citizens from 28 different countries also cast ballots, the probe found. “A number of non-citizens said they were not aware that they were prohibited from voting,” the report states. “Interviews and evidence show that some non-citizens were misinformed about the law by individuals conducting voter registration drives or, in at least one document case, by a local precinct official.” North Carolina authorities are also investigating 24 substantiated cases of double voting in 2016. “Some violators appear to be ‘testers’ trying to find holes in the system,” according to the report. “Others claim property ownership in multiple jurisdictions should allow them to vote in each, and others brush past the law to support their candidate by any means necessary. Additionally, a case that initially appears to be a double voter—an individual who votes twice—may actually be a case of voter impersonation—an individual who casts a ballot using the identity of another person.”

The NCSBE concedes that there are probably many more cases of double voting but identifying them is difficult and there’s no reliable method to consistently find them and other types of election fraud. “While no audit exists to catch all possible cases of voter impersonation, double voter or deceased voter audits may detect such cases,” the report says. This brings up another alarming point; if duplicate registrations are voted, there’s no way to tell if that’s fraudulent voting by a single individual—which everyone assumes—or impersonation fraud. Even in the North Carolina probe, we’ll never know if that’s the whole number. “These kinds of stories are a feature of every election and that’s despite the fact that most states often don’t even track these crimes in a systematic way,” said Robert Popper, a former Deputy Chief of Justice Department Voting Section who heads Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project. “Some states admit they don’t track them at all,” Popper added.

Judicial Watch has been heavily involved in the North Carolina case and in 2015 filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in opposition to a lower court ruling preventing the state from implementing its election integrity reform law. Passed by the legislature in 2013 the measure requires voters to present a photo identification, eliminates same-day registration, shortens the early voting period from 17 to 10 days and requires voters to cast ballots in their own precinct. The Obama administration joined a group of leftist organizations to challenge the law in federal court, alleging that it disparately and adversely affects minority voting rights. A federal judge, Thomas D. Schroeder, rejected the claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled against North Carolina just prior to the November 2014 elections. State officials asked the Supreme Court for a temporary stay of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and the high court granted it, allowing North Carolina’s election integrity rules to be used in 2014.

In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel from the Fourth Circuit wrote that North Carolina’s voter integrity law harmed blacks, who overwhelmingly cast ballots for Democrats. “The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” the appellate ruling states. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.” Under the racial “disparate impact” theory, which is at the heart of the controversial Fourth Circuit opinion, a defendant can be held liable for discrimination for a policy hat statistically disadvantages a minority group, even if that negative impact was neither foreseen nor intended. The more broadly accepted view by courts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) says that a violation occurs only when voting practices are motivated by a discriminatory intent and that any incidental racially disparate impact of a voting law is not sufficient on its own to prove a violation of Section 2.
135  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Improved European Jihad response on: May 27, 2017, 11:42:45 AM

136  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Police Tell Prof He's in Danger for Not Participating in Campus 'No Whites' Day on: May 27, 2017, 12:20:37 AM

Police Tell Prof He's in Danger for Not Participating in Campus 'No Whites' Day

An anti-fascist lights an American flag on fire during a free speech rally at Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park in Berkeley, California, United States of America on April 15, 2017. (Photo by Emily Molli/NurPhoto) (Sipa via AP Images)
Evergreen State College hosts an annual event called a "Day of Absence" where, traditionally, minority students and faculty step away from the campus for the day to show just how significant their impact is. Additionally, white students attend workshops on racism.

This year, the school apparently thought it would just be a hoot to change things up and just kick all the white folks off campus instead. Biology professor Bret Weinstein, however, took issue with the event.

Now, students are calling for his head:

Students at Evergreen State College in Olympia, who filmed their exploits and posted the videos on social media, have occupied and barricaded the library, shouting down anyone who disagrees with them or shows insufficient passion for racial justice.
Biology professor Bret Weinstein was berated by dozens of students outside of his classroom Tuesday morning for refusing to participate in an event in which white people were invited to leave campus for a day. Now, he says police have told him to hold his classes off campus due to safety concerns.

Things are “out of control at Evergreen,” he said.

“Police told me protesters stopped cars yesterday, demanding information about occupants,” Mr. Weinstein told The Washington Times. “They believe I was being sought. It appears that the campus has been under the effective control of protesters since 9:30 a.m. Tuesday. Police are on lockdown, hamstrung by the college administration. Students, staff and faculty are not safe.”

A student interviewed denies any knowledge of Weinstein being specifically sought.

Weinstein's sin is simply thinking that asking white folks to leave the campus was very different than minorities choosing to remove themselves from campus. He has a point. It appears that the original intent of this event is to show just how important minorities are to the proper functioning of the school. So why will demanding 66.7 percent of the student body, as well as Lord only knows how many faculty and staff, accomplish that same purpose?

Weinstein took issue with the change in an email, which led to him being confronted by students who refused to listen to the professor:

When the professor tells the students he will listen to them if they listen to him, one student responds, “We don’t care what terms you want to speak on. This is not about you. We are not speaking on terms -- on terms of white privilege. This is not a discussion. You have lost that one.”
Another protester asks the professor whether he believes “black students in sciences are targeted.”

After asking for a clarification, Mr. Weinstein says, “I do not believe that anybody on our faculty, with intent, specially targets students of color.”

That remark prompts shrieks of outrage.

Way to keep those lines of communication open, kids. Way to go.

For the record, Weinstein isn't exactly a member of the alt-Right. His brother describes him as "center-left." But in this day and age where Leftism has given up on its former one-sided "dialogue" tactic for all-out fascism, Weinstein suffers from the sin of insufficient enthusiasm for a Leftist cause. Any disagreement makes him Hitler in their minds. How dare he think for himself and challenge their ideas?

Remember, boys and girls, the Social Justice Warrior is not for tolerance and diversity. He's for cleansing society of unbelievers.
137  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Political Violence From the Left Continues Garnering Zero Condemnation in Leftis on: May 27, 2017, 12:16:40 AM

May 26, 2017
Political Violence From the Left Continues Garnering Zero Condemnation in Leftist Media

You can find my condemnation of Greg Gianforte's bodyslam right next to CNN's condemnation of the professor charged with three accounts of attacking peaceful Trump supporters -- with a bike lock. Which is a heavy metal improvised weapon.

Berkeley police have arrested a former Diablo Valley College professor for committing an assault during the protests that took place this April. During the protest, violence broke out between supporters of President Trump and far-left anarchists who brand themselves "Antifa," many of whom were clad in black and wore full face masks to conceal their identities.
East Bay Times reports that 28-year-old Eric Clanton was arrested Wednesday evening in Oakland and is currently being held on a $200,000 bail in Berkeley City Jail. He was arrested on suspicion of three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, including a U-lock bike lock, a weapon he is alleged to have used to seriously injure three people at the protest.

Note the three attacks hit the victim in the neck or head -- which is the target point which could kill someone with a steel bludgeon -- and also note that it does not appear to be the cops or the media which ferreted out this guy's identity, but 4chan.

Apparently the media couldn't give any fucks about it, and still doesn't.

You can also find my scathing rebuke of violence by the right next to CNN's denunciations of the mob attackers at Middlebury College, at least one of whom participated in an attack on a woman causing her enough injury to need a neck brace.

Oh, and you can also find my denunciation in the same common repository in which CNN scolds Middlebury for promising to punish the violent felons, but then not really punishing them at all.

Many are on temporary probation, with notation of that probably expunged from their record if they don't re-offend for the rest of the semester (that is, until like last week), and others have a notation in their file. This, too, I imagine will never be disclosed to anyone, due to privacy concerns -- so what's the point of a notation?

If students know they won’t be punished for violent and childish behavior, why would they stop?
One wonders if conservative students disrupting, say, a Linda Sarsour or Bill Ayers speech in similar fashion would receive such light sentencing. They certainly wouldn’t receive such a muted response from the mainstream media.

No one can identify the person who caused the injury to the female prof's neck -- but perhaps they're not looking all that hard, as they didn't seem to look very hard into the bike lock attacks in Berkley.

Maybe a job for 4chan again, to do the investigatory work the police and media aren't interested in.
138  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc. on: May 27, 2017, 12:12:18 AM
I get all that AND for the sake of our integrity-- and our honor in the eyes of others-- we must forthrightly and without hesitation "They do it too" say this was wrong.

The left counts on us to be good victims for them. Time for them to understand that's no longer the case. Violence will be met with violence.
139  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: May 26, 2017, 01:44:47 PM
These deeply unsound opinions are pushing the envelope to the point where people are going to ask "How many guns does the court have?" (an effort here to echo Stalin's response to a statement by the Pope "How many divisions does he have?")

The rule of law is dead in this country.
140  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc. on: May 26, 2017, 01:35:54 PM
Perhaps it's time to stop surrendering, and to quote a former president, "Punish our enemies".

"Holding Republicans to a different standard than Democrats is ..."

A fact.  Something Republicans surrendered to long ago.

Facts are still unknown here, but the alleged behavior (unfairly) reflects badly on all Republicans.

I'm glad he won, but if convicted of a serious crime, maybe Montana Republicans can nominate someone else next year.

I like ccp's question:

"Why is a ***UK***  newspaper! guy running around Montana getting up in the face of a Republican candidate?"

As is widely known, 'reporters' try to make news, not report news.  That sounds even worse when it is a foreign owned newspaper, trying to change the outcome rather than observe and report.  Since this event may have helped the Republican, maybe Democrats will scream for a congressional inquiry and independent prosecutor to look into British interference into our elections!
141  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: North and South Korea on: May 26, 2017, 01:25:55 PM
"China is an export based economy.  Their house of cards collapses if exports to the US collapses IMHO.  The regime is held up by power and by their public's perception of security and prosperity.  Collapse the economy and all they have left is military power that could conceivably turn against failed leadership."


China spends more on "internal security" than defense. Actually, China doesn't have a military, intelligence service or law enforcement agencies. Those belong to the Chinese Communist Party. I hesitate to mention this, as I don't want to give the dems any ideas.
142  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc. on: May 26, 2017, 12:45:25 PM
Punching reporters is a no no.  Period.

May 26, 2017
Here Is Why We Shouldn't Care That Greg Gianforte Won The Special Election In Montana
Remember Congressman Etheridge? Probably not, because the Democrat Party protects its own.

Check the video below the fold for Etheridge's violent reaction to some students asking him questions.

But the Dems were cool with that behavior, because they allowed him to run for the governorship in the Democratic primary, and then after he lost gave him a job in government! He is the executive director of the North Carolina branch of the U.S. Farm Service Agency, whatever the hell that is.

So lets us not get too exercised by Gianforte's behavior. Holding Republicans to a different standard than Democrats is exactly the game plan of the Democrat Party, and it works very, very well.

#Invalid YouTube Link#
143  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / FBI illegally shared spy data on Americans on: May 26, 2017, 11:20:16 AM
144  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Why Trump has a responsibility to ignore the Fourth Circuit on: May 26, 2017, 09:21:49 AM

Why Trump has a responsibility to ignore the Fourth Circuit

Posted May 25, 2017 05:41 PM by Daniel Horowitz
Immigration  Court  Judges  Republic  Judicial   travel ban lawsuits no wall no ban immigration protest refugees Protesters hold signs during a demonstration against President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, Monday, May 15, 2017, outside a federal courthouse in Seattle. Ted S. Warren | AP

The Fourth Circuit Court has nullified national sovereignty, but nobody in the political chattering class has answered the most important question: Why should Trump listen and what exactly is he supposed to do (or not do) in abiding by this opinion? There is no valid case or controversy to follow.

What distinguishes a court from a legislature

If Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, or Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., were to don black robes tomorrow and issue judicial orders on flagrantly political issues, would we expect the other branches of government to treat them as the final law of the land – binding over the other two branches of government – more so than when they were sitting in their respective legislative chambers? 

Of course not. The other branches, especially if controlled by Democrats, would discard their judicial “opinions” immediately. 

Yet, that is – including lower-court judges created by Congress, and not even the Constitution – now having the final say over national sovereignty, immigration, and national security.

Consider this irrationality: Congress can pass a law along party lines, yet we won’t regard that as the law of the land until a court upholds it. Yet, a court can be split along the same party lines – and is unelected and unaccountable – but somehow that is given MORE legitimacy than a legislature.

That’s exactly Thursday in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals when 10 Democrat appointees “voted” against Trump’s temporary immigration moratorium, while the three GOP appointees voted for it.

Why not just have elected partisan officials decide political matters instead of unelected ones?

And therein lies the nub of this case. What differentiates a court from a legislature, what prevents the judiciary from becoming a de facto veto over the other two branches on broad national policy – and now even international policy – rather than serving as a separate co-equal branch, is that it can only adjudicate an individual case or controversy with legitimate standing and redressable grievances.

But the notion that their opinion in that individual case would be regarded as binding precedent on a national policy without any opposition is absurd; it philosophically undermines the premise of republican government, checks and balances, and co-equal branches.

Even those who believed in more robust judicial power always assumed that issues of national sovereignty and national security dealing with foreign nationals was beyond the reach of the court. In fact, it was considered settled law for over 100 years.

No standing on second Trump immigration order

In the case before the Fourth Circuit, there was no legitimate case or controversy. There is nothing for Pres. Trump to abide by. As Judge Steven Agee noted in his dissent, the three plaintiffs don’t have valid standing.

Even if we cede the absurd premises (see links below for more on this issue) that American relatives can sue to bring in foreign nationals, that the courts have the right to overturn sovereignty — and that the Establishment Clause applies to hypothetical immigrants — there is no redressable grievance. None of the plaintiffs were actually denied entry.; they merely feared the stigma of Trump’s declaration.

Thus, what relief did the courts grant in this case? And to whom? They can’t “strike down” an executive guidance. They don’t have such power — it has to apply to a tangible case.

Judge Agee explained the conditions for valid standing that differentiates the judicial power from legislative or executive powers as follows:

(1) “the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical”; (2) “there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court”; and (3) “it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”

In this case, two of the plaintiffs are Iranian LPRs (lawful permanent residents, i.e. green card holders) who want to bring over their wives from Iran. Both should never have standing (over and beyond the obvious reasons ignored by the courts) because the wife of John Doe No. 1 was never denied yet and her application is still in process, and John Doe No. 3’s wife was actually approved!

Why are they suing? Because they are “being torn apart by this situation and the uncertainty and delay” and the stress and anxiety of feeling like “an outsider.” Thus, there is absolutely no injury-in-fact, even if we agreed foreign nationals somehow have a right to immigrate to America!

Moreover, even if there was a valid case, there is no tangible application of this case that would make the court’s opinion tantamount to “striking down” the policy.

For example, in the first round of litigation on the original order, while the courts were still way out of line, there was a tangible outcome for the Trump administration to follow. They allowed in anyone with a valid visa who was stuck at the airport. But in this case, we are talking about hypothetical future immigrants.

The courts are saying you can’t categorically deny visas from nationals of the listed countries. OK … but what should Trump affirmatively do? Does he now have to bring in everyone? Does he have to bring in the same ratio as any other country?

During every day of every administration, the DHS and State Department deny visas for all sorts of discretionary reasons. There’s no way a court can categorically ban the action of denying visas. So, under which circumstances may the president deny any visa? There is no way to know, which is why he should continue following statute. 

Moreover, as I mentioned Thursday morning, as it relates to refugees the court opinion doesn’t make any sense at all. The refugee moratorium wasn’t applied only to “Muslim” countries; it was applied to everyone. So, the plaintiff in this case who had a relative applying for refugee status (this was the third plaintiff, Muhammed “John” Meteab) doesn’t even have a valid Establishment Clause claim, even under their crazy system.

Plus, in this case, the applications for the relatives of this plaintiff were actually approved! So what’s the beef? Meteab claims he “experienced anti-Muslim sentiment and felt very uncomfortable and insecure in their community, causing them acute mental stress.”

But even if we agree with the court that the president, who has full control to set the refugee cap, suddenly cannot categorically shut down refugee resettlement, what exactly is he supposed to do? Does he bring in 50,000 a year … 70,000 … 100,000? How much is “enough”?

Furthermore, parts of the Fourth Circuit Court’s opinion are null and void on their face. As it relates to non-immigrant visas from four of the six countries, 8 U.S. Code §1735 requires the president to cut off visas to state sponsors of terrorism, which at the time of passage in 2002, included five of the seven countries in Trump’s original order.

Thus, there is no excuse for Trump’s secretary of state or DHS secretary not to continue passively denying visas or refugee status to their heart’s content. This is not the same as advocating “not listening to the courts.” (Although that is something that needs to happen anyway, because the courts don’t listen to statutes and the Constitution.) It’s to say that there is no affirmative action to take in accordance with a court order because there is no order and a court can’t issue such an order.

The Trump administration should at least wait for the ACLU to launch another challenge and try to prove that the White House is in some way violating the order. But, in order to do so, they would have to challenge an actual denial of a visa. The problem is that 8 U.S. Code §1201(h)(i) gives customs officers the plenary authority to not only deny issuance of a visa but to revoke one already issued.

What’s more, this provision of law, which passed the Senate 96-2 in 2004, explicitly stripped the courts of any jurisdiction to adjudicate the revocation of visas for anyone seeking entry into the country (as opposed to someone living here who is being deported). The jurisdiction-stripping provision includes even a basic habeas corpus petition. How in the world can the courts be allowed to get involved in this matter?

Perforce, the “executive order” is not a tangible law because the law already gives the executive branch such authority. If the courts are merely saying that Trump can’t make a public declaration that makes American Muslims feel stigmatized (which is essentially the only way they granted standing in this case), then Trump should just rip up the order but proceed to quietly adhere to more or less the same policies.

Any complaints about such a move would, by definition, make the courts a legislature, not a judicial body. And if we can’t , we are no longer a republic worth defending.
145  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: North and South Korea on: May 26, 2017, 09:06:46 AM
If we are not planning to militarily end this regime, moving carriers around the globe is an expensive way to play mind games with this lunatic.

Wouldn't it be great if deal maker President has orchestrated an overwhelming joint effort of China, Russia, US and South Korea to free this prison camp and rescue the inmates.

It would be nice, but I expect the best case is that China sits on the sidelines and let's it happen.
146  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc. on: May 26, 2017, 08:49:59 AM
"I'm hoping that punching the MSM was what put him over the top."

Right, but it is the left that wants to keep opening the vote process and this had the potential of being a reason not to do that.

The left opening the vote process is about enabling fraud, not actually getting actual Americans to vote.
147  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Knife Law on: May 26, 2017, 08:46:48 AM

Actual criminals use box cutters and utility knives purchased at a dollar store, not 100+ dollar "tactical" knives.
148  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, early voting backfires for Dems in Montana on: May 26, 2017, 08:37:39 AM
Sean Trende wrote what I was thinking.
early voting provides some flexibility for voters, the evidence that it actually improves turnout is at best limited (with some evidence finding that it actually decreases turnout).
More importantly, to my mind, is that there’s something to be said for the idea of voters heading to the voting booth with the same information.  While early voters tend to be more partisan – and hence less likely to change their votes in response to new information – there are incidents such as this that could do so (or in primaries, where candidates sometimes drop out before Election Day).

I'm hoping that punching the MSM was what put him over the top. The left likes violence, let them enjoy what they have brought to the table.
149  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Anyone in a betting mood? on: May 25, 2017, 09:39:08 PM
150  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Gosh, deliberate lies to push a narrative on: May 25, 2017, 09:24:34 PM

Cosmo Sucks

After the terrorist attack in Manchester this week, many people rose to the occasion magnificently, as people always do. Of particular note was how the Sikh community responded. Like this fellow:

sikh 1.jpg
Of course, none of this is surprising, as the Sikh community has a long history of dealing with Muslim violence. Cosmo asks to use the photo in reporting the story stateside. Oh, that's nice, you might think, it's a good story, be some nice publicity for the Sikhs.

Sikh 2.jpg

So Cosmo runs the story:

Sikh 3.jpg
This isn't an accident, the driver was correctly identified in the source material. This is a deliberate LIE to feed a narrative. Fuck you Cosmo.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 297
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!