Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Hillary for Prison!

This is from a recent Congressional hearing with Trey Gowdy asking FBI Director Comey why he did not recommend indicting Hillary:

Comey:  “I think we’d have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a general awareness of the unlawfulness of your conduct; you knew you were doing something you shouldn’t do.”

Gowdy:  “The way to prove that is whether or not someone took steps to conceal or destroy what they’ve done.  That is the best evidence you have that they knew it was wrong – that they lied about it.”

Comey:  “It’s awfully…it’s very good evidence.  I’ll always want to look at what the subject said about their conduct.”

Now, you have to be a complete moron not to believe that Hillary knew what she was doing was illegal.  Or, alternatively, you must believe that Hillary is a complete moron who somehow served as a U.S. Senator for eight years and was approved by the same Senate as Secretary of State without knowing basic classified information and e-security protocols, let alone laws on simply maintaining government records.

Under the relevant statutes, she didn't even have to know for sure she was breaking the law, she just had to have a "general awareness of the unlawfulness of [her] conduct."  Given the evidence, Hillary's "general awareness" is utterly certain, easily proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Comey knows this.  Everyone knows this.

Hillary is guilty as sin.  The system is corrupt through and through.  The elites are no longer bound by the rule of law and they know it.  The whole rotten structure needs gutting.  If Hillary gets to the White House and pays nothing for her felonies, guess what will happen?

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is not "science" - yet

A friend of mine posed the following question on Facebook:

"So, an honest favor request for climate change skeptics, non-believers, deniers, however you choose to self identify... I ask this out of true curiosity. I ask in the spirit of honest debate.

A topic exists that in your mind is still open for debate... Ok, I get that. I even lived there for a while.

The question is this: Is there any authority that could sway your position on climate change? Who could speak out (publish, document, whatever) and what would they say to change your mind on this topic?"

I responded with the correct answer, which I now post below:

"Extremely simple. It doesn't matter who says what. It only matters that someone makes a prediction and that prediction comes to pass, and is repeatably confirmed by subsequent observations that I myself may observe. A patent clerk from Switzerland said light would bend around a massive object because gravity warps space, and predicted the resulting observation of distant stars' light bending around the sun during an eclipse. It didn't matter what credentials Einstein had. His theory made a testable prediction that was verified by observation, and has continually been re-verified by subsequent observations. Catastrophic AGW proponents have NEVER made a prediction that was confirmed via a testable observation. Until someone does, nothing any of them says holds any weight whatsoever. In fact, the opposite is true: every prediction the catastrophic AGW crowd has made has not been observed - no theory predicted the 18-hear hiatus on rising global temperatures - and thus every theory thus far hypothesized has been falsified. The motto of the very first scientific society, The Royal Society of which Isaac Newton was a founding member, is "Nullius in Verba" - take nobody's word for it. Any scientific theory must be demonstrated by actual observation of phenomena predicted by the theory. That is science. The question you have posed - whose word will skeptics accept - is anti-science. Practicing scientists know this, so if any of them ever pose the same question, or makes any appeal to authority - i.e., asks us to trust someone's word - they are willfully anti-science and necessarily fraudulent. So I now turn around and pose to you this scientific question: what potential observation will disprove the catastrophic AGW hypothesis? I have NEVER heard any catastrophic AGW adherent answer that question. If someone has, please direct me to it."

Let me append to this an additional comment.  With Einstein's Theory of Special (or General) Relativity, many if not most testable observations are beyond the every day experience of the average person as they only differ in predictions from Newton's laws (which are easily testable by the average person) at extreme (short or long) distances and/or velocities.  To observe the differences in predictions between Einstein and Newton's theories, one generally needs special equipment.  So most of us, including me, generally take the scientific consensus' word for it, knowing we could test these predictions ourselves if need be, and glory and fame would come to us if we discovered Einstein was wrong.  Any AGW theory is making a testable prediction about the weather, which anyone can observe by walking outside, which means no one has to take the word of scientists to observe an AGW theory's predictions.  The sea level rises or it doesn't (it hasn't).  The weather outside one's house gets progressively hotter every year (on average) or it doesn't (for 18 years, it hasn't).

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

Ann Barnhardt's burning of the Koran needs to be linked to today

RIP Charlie Hebdo martyrs

Thursday, December 18, 2014

"Narrative Collapse" is the point

Though there have been many instances of “narrative collapse” in the last few months, I haven’t seen anyone express the truly cynical view for the cause of these instances. 

The charitable explanation is that our leftist overlords are just stupid, and too wishful to excoriate the Great White Defendant, for doing things the “narrative” says are common, but in reality hardly ever occur.  Accordingly, because they believe the “narrative,” they are too gullible to doubt or even casually investigate the initial reports by “victims” or bystanders who proclaim some “crime” that fits the “narrative.” 

This is becoming too common in my view to be chalked up to stupidity – or at least the stupidity of the Cathedral.  No, it is much more sinister.  I believe these “narrative collapse” incidents are manufactured precisely because those pushing the initial story know the facts will not match the initial reports. 

This makes sense when you understand the people for whom these “narrative collapse” events are manufactured are not the public at large, but the various "victim" groups under the Democrat/leftist umbrella.  Those groups – made up of gullible people who are fundamentalist believers of the “narrative” – will religiously believe the initial reports because they believe the “narrative” and will not believe the true facts when they come out, no matter how overwhelming the evidence.  Thus, when “the system” fails to convict or punish the accused, this will prove (to the gullible/fundamentalist "victim" groups) the “system” is broken and in need of radical change.  This is the true goal.

The hive-mind media is still run by a few elites at the top that can kill – or manufacture – any story they wish.  These elites count on the gullibility of their on-the-street (or more accurately, either “drive-by” or staring at a computer screen) foot-soldier media to believe and push a story the elites know will ultimately be proven false.  The elites only push stories that will eventually result in “narrative collapse” because if they pushed a true story that fit the narrative, the “system” would likely result in a conviction and justice.  That would be worse for the “narrative.”

In other words, if a story came out of a racist white cop killing an unarmed black man with his arms up saying “don’t shoot” and that cop was tried and convicted by the system, the “system” obviously isn't broken and is in no need of change.  Whites in general will be shown to disapprove of this behavior and capable of punishing the wrongdoer.  Thus, the behavior of this one racist white cop, who was appropriately punished by the "system," will not advance the “narrative” that all whites are secretly racists, plotting the oppression of the “other.”  Democrat "victim" groups might question the "narrative" that all whites are racists and the "system" is a construct to perpetuate "white privilege."

But if the “system” fails to punish the allegedly racist white cop, who is obviously guilty based on the initial reports that the Democrats’ "victim" groups believe without question, only then does the incident become proof of the “narrative” and keep those deliberately enstupidated Democrat voters on the plantation.

Wednesday, August 07, 2013

To believe the MSM is not liberal one must have a mental disorder

From my mom (Hi mom!), I was provided a link to the following Daily Kos article:  15 things everyone would know if there were a liberal media.  These 15 things are all either untrue, repeatedly covered by the Cathedral, so obscure or out dated as to be un-newsworthy.  I can only adequately respond to it here, so here we go:

1.  Where the jobs went – A simple Google search of “lost manufacturing jobs” brought up articles by US News, LA Times, CNN Money, NBC, and many others within the past year. Would a liberal media really want to highlight lost low-skill jobs while Obama is pushing for amnesty for 20 million low-skill illegal immigrants?

2.  Upward wealth distribution and/or inequality – Did Daily Kos forget the Occupy Wall Street/We are the 99% nonsense that the MSM covered day and night for a year?

3.  ALEC – Liberals have their special interest groups that draft proposed legislation and hand it to legislators, who then submit it and vote on it without reading it (e.g., Obamacare). They have way more than conservatives.  I know this first hand as I saw it while working for the Pete Wilson administration.

4.  The number of people in prison – Coming to a street corner near you:

5.  The number of black people in prison – A liberal media would conceal this fact, not heavily report it. Reporting it would lead people to believe hate facts.

6.  U.S. health costs are the highest in the world – As if PBS never reported this OECD study: Second, the idea is false. To take the average per capita spent on health care and say the “costs” equal that amount is nonsense. U.S. car purchase costs are the highest in the world. Why? Because we’re wealthier so purchases of super cars raises the average, and the average American can afford a better car, so they but a better car. Of course Somalia spends next to nothing on health care. They have crappy health care. Other western nations ration health care so their citizens get less of it, and at worse quality.

7.  Glass-Steagall – As if Dodd-Frank never passed.

8.  Gerrymandering – Both sides do it shamelessly. Note California isn’t on dipshit’s list. Jerry Brown beat Meg Whitman 54% to 41%, yet Democrats hold over 66% of the state assembly and senate offices.

9.  The number of bills blocked by Republicans in Congress – How often did the MSM report that the Democrat-controlled Senate and House failed to pass a budget in 2010 and the Democrat-controlled Senate simply refused to take up Republican-controlled House budget resolutions in 2011 and 2012? That’s right. Never.

10.  The Citizens United Supreme Court decision – The MSM heavily reported it when it came out – three and a half years ago. Obama mentioned it in his State of the Union Speech, to which Justice Alito responded (quite correctly) “Not true.” Within the past year, multiple MSM news sources reported Nancy Pelosi’s vow to seek a constitutional amendment overturning the decision. Will the MSM run similar stories on the Liberty Amendments? Of course not.  [UPDATE:  The Liberty Amendments is the #1 book on Amazon.  A simple Google search shows that no MSM outlet has published a story or reviewed the book.]

11.  Nixon’s Southern Strategy – The MSM doesn't adequately report on the Presidential election of 1968? Are you kidding me?

12.  Tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthy – To accurately report this fact, the MSM would also have to report that the “rich” – which I’ll call the wealthiest 10% – pay more than 70% of all income taxes, and that this percentage has grown over the past 30 years. Also, the bottom 47% don’t pay any income tax whatsoever (another “hate fact” accurately stated by Mitt Romney). When you only tax the productive, a cut in the tax necessarily only benefits the productive.

13.  What’s happening to the bees? – Are honey prices sky high? Are agriculture product prices sky high? Is this really one of the top 15 facts the world must know now? The MSM demonizes bees? Bee Movie?

14.  The impact of temporary workers on our economy – Does this moron mean illegal immigrants? Or perhaps the fact that 77% of new jobs created in 2013 were part-time in order to escape Obamacare regulations? Yea, a liberal media would totally do an in depth report on that. Not.

15.Media consolidation – Liberals like big media conglomerates that are too big to fail. Liberals like the cozy relationship between the government and General Electric, the parent company of NBC, CNBC and MSNBC.  And as if the MSM never, ever mentions the media empire of Rupert Murdoch, or the Koch brothers, or Sheldon Adelson.

The inescapable conclusion is that Daily Kos thinks the media isn’t liberal because it reports liberal lies slightly less often as Daily Kos would like.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

The LA Times is right. The Zimmerman verdict should be a wake-up call to the black community.

Just not how the LA Times, or NAACP, understand it.  And that is the problem.  (Necessary caveat: when I refer to "blacks" or the "black community" I am obviously not referring to all blacks; rather, I am using the term in the same sense as Martin Luther King III is in his speech to the NAACP.)

The black community needs to learn they cannot act like thug gangstas without consequences.  Black parents need to learn they must do something to prevent their children from embracing the thug/gangsta lifestyle of drugs and violence, starting with having children only after getting married and then staying married to raise them.  

The black community needs to learn that when a child is given multiple school suspensions for violence and burglary, that child needs to be carefully watched and disciplined   Black parents need to learn that, when a "troubled" youth like Trayvon moves to a new neighborhood because of multiple school suspensions, they should alert the neighbors to his presence and specifically ask the neighbors to watch him and report back to his parents if they see Trayvon misbehaving.  

Trayvon's parents should then have told Trayvon they asked for their neighbors' help keeping Trayvon out of trouble.  This is how CIVILIZED people and communities behave.  It is entirely Trayvon and his parents' fault that this incident occurred.  The black community needs to realize this if future incidents are to be avoided.

Black "leaders" are telling the "black community" the exact wrong lesson to be learned from this incident, and that is a shame.  It is also intentional, because those black "leaders" have a financial incentive to make their community believe nothing is their fault, but is solely the fault of white racism, for which they must give money and power to black "leaders" to combat.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

George Zimmerman is a hero

Most of the post-Zimmerman verdict commentary I've seen, at least in the professional media (both left and right), has agreed there was reasonable doubt according to the evidence actually presented in the actual trial, since there obviously was.  But most of this commentary has also claimed Zimmerman acted inappropriately.  A typical example of this line of thought is from this article in Slate by William Saletan.  The general criticisms of Zimmerman's behavior that night argue he never should have gotten out of his car, never should have followed Trayvon, or indeed, never should have thought Trayvon was doing anything suspicious enough to warrant calling the police.  These criticisms are wrong and demonstrate the larger pussification of America.

According to the left, no American should ever act in self defense.  All threats should be addressed by calling the police and acting as passively as possible towards any aggressors until the police arrive.  According to the right, at least in theory, we are all free Americans with the right to enjoy our liberties against lawbreakers.  People who are acting suspiciously should be confronted by any free American male, asked their business, and if no satisfactory answer is given, appropriately followed and reported to the police.  This is how crime is prevented.  Thugs should most definitely not have free reign to wander around preparing to commit crimes.  Is it dangerous to do this?  Of course.  But this is why we have the Second Amendment.

This brings up the key issue in the Zimmerman case:  that fateful night, was Trayvon acting suspiciously enough to warrant Zimmerman following him and calling the police?  Most definitely yes.  Accordingly, it was right, just and good for Zimmerman to call the police and follow Trayvon to accurately report his location and monitor his activities.

According to Zimmerman's call to the police, "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something.  It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."  After identifying Trayvon's race and clothing, after being asked by the police to do so, Zimmerman has this exchange:  Dispatcher:  "OK, he's just walking around the area..."  Zimmerman:  "...looking at all the houses."

Now, we in the outside world know that Trayvon was an accomplished burglar, but that evidence never made it in the trial, and Zimmerman wouldn't have known about Trayvon's criminal history (although, arguably, he and the rest of the neighborhood watch team and HOA leadership should have been told by Trayvon's father about Trayvon's history of fighting, drug use and school suspensions when Trayvon moved into Trayvon's father's girlfriend's house).  Instead, we have only what Zimmerman observed about Trayvon's behavior.  Note that absolutely nothing in the transcript of Zimmerman's phone call to the police indicates Zimmerman thought Trayvon was suspicious either (1) because he was black, or (2) because he was wearing a hoodie.  Trayvon was suspicious because of his behavior, i.e., wandering around in the rain looking at houses rather than quickly and directly walking home.

Under these circumstances, Mr. Saletan's article argues Zimmerman's "Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar."  This was not a mistake of the "factually inaccurate" type.  Trayvon's behavior that night most definitely suggested he was a burglar.

According to Saletan, "Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot."  So instead of following someone acting like a burglar, and possibly preventing another Olivia Bertalan-type "hot" burglary, according to Saletan (and most of the rest of the MSM) Zimmerman should have sat in his car, lost sight of Trayvon and let the crime happen.  Pussification, pure and simple.

Finally, according to Saletan, "Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin."  Wrong!  It is Trayvon who should have known he was acting suspiciously.  It is Trayvon who should have acted  politely when confronted by any resident of the gated community seeing him wandering around in the rain looking at houses rather than walking directly and diligently back to his father's girlfriend's house.  It is Trayvon who should have politely explained himself to Zimmerman, and should have known that politely explaining himself - as a new "resident" - to his neighbors, when he was walking around outside in the rain, was the appropriate and civilized thing to do.  Instead, Trayvon's warped gang/thug culture brain decided to sucker punch Zimmerman.

Had Trayvon appreciated and abided by the customs and behaviors of civilized men, Zimmerman never would have shot him.  Zimmerman did abide by the customs and traditions of civilized men - he protected his family and his neighborhood from a stranger who was objectively acting like a burglar.

Saletan ends his article with this line:  "And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire."  Wrong again.  Obviously, you don't shoot first and ask questions later, but you do act like an American, a civilized man, and confront people acting suspiciously in your neighborhood.  Your neighbors should expect this of you, and you should expect this of them.  When you are acting suspiciously, you should act like an American, a civilized man, acknowledge that your behavior might look suspicious, and explain yourself politely if confronted.

We know Trayvon was a drug user with a history of violent crime and burglary.  We know - and the statistics amply support this - that Trayvon was highly likely to commit more crimes of violence in his "new" neighborhood.  Perhaps if Trayvon had been arrested for any of his previous crimes, instead of having those crimes covered up to fraudulently manipulate a school's crime statistics, perhaps if his parents had taught him better, he never would have encountered George Zimmerman.  But Trayvon made all the mistakes that night.  Zimmerman is a hero who took up the burden of defending his neighbors when the police proved ineffective.  He happened to stop Trayvon's budding crime career.  While it is a tragedy that Trayvon died so young and now does not have the opportunity to turn his life around, the statistics predict he wouldn't have, and would have victimized more innocent people.  Had Zimmerman been black (wait, he is black), you never would have heard of this case, just like you've never heard of the beating death of Joshua Chellew.