December 20, 2019
Alan Dershowitz says withholding the impeachment from the Senate is unconstitutional.
From Newsmax:
It is difficult to imagine anything more unconstitutional, more violative of the intention of the Framers, more of a denial of basic due process and civil liberties, more unfair to the president and more likely to increase the current divisiveness among the American people. Put bluntly, it is hard to imagine a worse idea put forward by good people
Denying President Trump and the American people a trial in the Senate would constitute a variation on the title of my new book, "Guilt by Accusation."
President Trump would stand accused of two articles of impeachment without having an opportunity to be acquitted by the institution selected by the Framers to try all cases of impeachment. It would be as if a prosecutor deliberately decided to indict a criminal defendant but not to put him on trial.
This would deny him the right to confront his accusers and to disprove the charges against him. Tribe himself uses a variant of this analogy.
The President has the right to a trial if charged. Read the Sixth Amendment! It is one of the most fundamental rights in the Constitution.
What the Democrats are trying to do is deny the President his basic human rights. This is better suited to Venezuela or China than a free society.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:40 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.
In response to Tim's post Evangelical Turncoat
Except that Donald Trump did not ask Ukraine to investigate Biden. He asked Ukraine to investigate internal Ukrainian corruption surrounding the firing of an investigator.
Yes, this was the investigator that Joe Biden demanded be fired, but he was fired because he was investigating corruption within Ukraine that Joe Biden did not want uncovered. It was the firing of the investigator and the Ukrainian corruption that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate, not Joe Biden's role in it.
The lie of "Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden"has been repeated so many times that even Trump supporters have come to believe it and are now trying to justify it. Don't try to justify, refute it, because it is a lie.
Trump clouded the issue when he said at the end of the call, "You really need to look into this because what Joe Biden did was really shameful."
But analyze what he is saying. Note the highlight. He is saying that Joe Biden stopped an investigation that needed to proceed, which was a shameful act, and so you need to restart that investigation. The remark about Joe Biden is merely explanatory about why they need to restart the investigation that Joe Biden stopped.
An investigation of Joe Biden for "doing what Trump is accused of doing"is not needed, because he is on film not only admitting to have done it, but actually bragging about it. Why would Trump ask Ukraine to investigate a matter which is already proven beyond any possible doubt?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:12 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.
I was arguing with a liberal on Facebook, a person who claimed the economy is bad and only the rich are doing well. We've heard that before; it's the standard talking points used by the demo-left in this country when they can't complain about prosperity.
At an y rate, I pointed out a few facts to this fool.
1. Coal profits have begun rebounding (he used coal as one example of how we aren't doing well, despite the fact it was Barack Obama who destroyed the coal industry.) See here.
2.U.S. oil profits hit a five year high last year despite low prices at the pump, totaling $25 billion dollars. That translates into jobs and profits for pensions and mutual funds.
3.In spite of the trade war with China and a drop in agricultural exports, 2019 is expected to finish well above the previous year.
3. U.S. auto sales were up in 2019:
4.Disposable income rose steadily this year reaching an all time record high of 16702.70 USD Billion in November of 2019. That was up from 2017 I might add.
5. The Gross Domestic Product xpanded 2.1% in 2019. This is a bit of a slowdown in growth rates from a peak in July of 2018 of 3.2%. This is still higher than the 2% growth in January 2017 when Mr. Trump took office. Obama's average GDP growth was 2% during his entire eight years in office.
And while Obama was hindered by recovery from the recession (a recession much worse than necessary because of government intervention in the markets which swallowed up economic growth - and that was as much Bush's fault as Obamas) Mr. Trump has been forced to struggle with a trade war with China (and that is ultimately necessary, but painful up front).
In short, we have seen robust improvement over the Obama economy, and that was by design. It is the meaning of "sustainable" which is a euphamism for no economic growth, something desired by the Environmentalist lobby (the Gang Green, I call them).
And this was accomplished while being under relentless assault by "the resistance" - meaning not only did he receive no support for any of his policies by Democrats, but he has had to defend himself in a way never before endured by any president of the U.S., with only the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
Obama had considerable bipartisan support for much of his economic policies.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:54 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 4 kb.
Here is a bad sign; Christianity Today, one of the largest Evangelical publications in America, has called for the removal from office of President Trump.
Christianity Today was founded by the late Billy Graham.
Editor Mark Galli, who is leaving the publication, wrote an op-ed calling for the President's removal and for Evangelicals to walk away from him:
I'm not sure which impeachment Mr. Galli was watching; there was little but heresay evidence and biased witnesses.
Yes, this president may well be a man of immoral character, but a. we already knew that and b. isn't this just a little bit hypocritical of Galli, who has apparently forgotten the admonition "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Well, that is quite a judgmental mouthful!
But I must ask Mr. Galli, in a world dominated by Realpolitik and bare-knuckle political warfare, what would he have us do? He would ask us to abandon a bad guy for the victory of a worse one.
Is he not aware that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden precisely because Biden actually did what Trump has been accused of doing? That Biden is on tape bragging about it? And is he aware that the Ukraine was where much of the dirty tricks against Mr. Trump originated? That the President was ASKING, and that there never was a quid pro quo, nor that the aid was not withheld (unlike under Obama)?
You could argue that what Trump did was no better than what his political opposition did (and I do not make that case, but it could be argued) but it certainly is no worse. So why throw Trump under the bus and allow his enemies to win?
Is that somehow Christian?
Christians are to be as wise as serpents, according to the Bible, as well as innocent as lambs. Mr. Galli appears to want us to be nothing but lambs, and we all know the fate of lambs, both when the wolves come and when the meat supply runs low.
Trump rightly called Christtianity Today a "left wing magazine" which it has become. Galli took umbrage with that characterization, calling it "centrist". Centrist is code when liberals use it. That is a dog whistle.
Left wing Evangelical leader Jim Wallis (Obama's pet Evangelical) called the support of Trump by the Evangelical community a "faustian bargain" because Trump appoints constitutionalist judges. Who has made a faustian bargain? It seems to me these liberal Evangelicals are the ones willing to trade their morals for what THEY want. They are happy to disregard Biblical laws in order to get their charitable money and "tolerance". How many take a stand against gay marriage, for instance? Or against abortion? How about applying the seventh commandment in terms of our government, which steals money from the citizenry all the time?
Oh, and Mr. Wallis and Galli, what of Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness? From the time Donald Trump walked down that elevator to declare his candidacy there have been lies and innuendos made, slanders against him. He was falsely accused of conspiring with the Russians, for instance. He was accused of gross misconduct, the infamous "golden shower" claim. He was falsely accused of inviting the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's e-mails. He's been falsely accused over and over, and yet Galli and Wallace don't have a problem with that.
Galli stated
As contibutor Bill H. pointed out, Mr. Biden has not yet won the nomination and as such is not a political opponent. And while Mr. Biden (who actually DID use his office for political gain) was a frontrunner, it seems doubtful he would have gotten the nomination in any event, as he is too old, too white, too male, and just plain too screwy.
Mr. Galli's choice to judge President Trump on insufficient information and innuendo and third hand heresay is despicable, and HE really should examine his own soul before judging tho Presidents.
Judge not, Mr. Galli, lest ye be judged. Isn't that the favorite of you liberals?
Franklyn Graham tweeted:
God often uses flawed vessels. He chose Jacob, who was a conniving little jerk who stole his brother's birthright. He chose Judah as the father of His only son, even though Judah sold his brother Joseph into slavery. He chose Saul as king of Israel, an arrogant, disobedient man. He chose David, an adulterer and a man who murdered the husband of a woman he got pregnant. He chose criminals, prositutes, rebels. to be His disciples. The only man we know for certain to be in Heaven is the thief who was crucified along with Jesus; Jesus promised him "this day you will be in paradise". The thief admitted his crimes.
Now, Donald Trump may be an immoral man. He may be working our will - and more importantly The Lord's - because it benefits him to do so. But at least he IS doing what is right, even if for wrong reasons. We won't have that if we reject him as impure.We'll get our enemies in charge because we were unwilling to accept less than we thought we should have.
Remember, Donald Trump is the aggrieved party in this. He wants investigations because there has been a coup attempt against him from the very beginning. Maybe it was a mistake to ask for the Ukrainians to help, but it was a natural mistake. And he wasn't asking for something dirty, just that the Ukrainians live up to the anti-corruption pact they signed with us. Trump simply asked for justice, not punitive actions.
Strange how Mr. Galli is so quick to judge Trump over this.
I don't think this is going to matter that much politically. I think battle lines are drawn, and Galli and company will be seen as defectors, turncoats, rebels. Of course, they know this, and the whole point is to swing a few votes away from Trump. If the election is razor thin it could be the margin of victory.
But I don't think it will matter.
Mr. Galli, remember your Dante! Think about that place calle Antenora, where the souls of traitors to kin and country reside.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:22 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1264 words, total size 8 kb.
December 19, 2019
Frankly, I'd say that if she doesn't send this to the Senate, she should be impeached! Won't happen, of course, since her party has the majority in the House. But talk about having delusions of grandeur! Or is it Botox poisoning?Talk about your quid pro quos. After ramrodding through the tissue-thin impeachment articles in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now threatening to withhold the Democrats' case unless she can dictate the terms of the Senate trial. The Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, hasn't weighed in on Pelosi's plan to take over his domain.
Pelosi, Congressman Adam Schiff, and Senator Chris Van Hollen have now all floated the idea of freezing the House vote where it is and not sending the impeachment articles to the U.S. Senate, where President Trump would undoubtedly go down in history as being vindicated.
Pelosi said, "So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us" and vowed to withhold naming the House Managers (the prosecutors) of the impeachment case until McConnell gives her the kind of "fair trial" that she demands:
The prevent-defense by the Democrats would, in the words of Fox News host Laura Ingraham, allow Pelosi to "say 'we've impeached the president' [but not] let him say he was acquitted."
Ingraham asked former Whitewater independent counsel Chris Ray about such a move. He shut it down: "Even as Speaker of the House, she doesn't get to tell the United States Senate what to do, period."
Constitutional law expert John Eastman was stunned that Pelosi would break with yet another precedent:
There's certainly no precedent for withholding articles of impeachment. When the House passes a resolution or a bill it necessarily must go to the Senate for consideration. This is not a single House resolution, this is something that requires the participation of both houses of Congress. Again, completely uncharted territory. But if she doesn't send them over there, it just proves that ... this is a sham...
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:20 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 3 kb.
News media repeatedly state that Ukraine is "at war with Russia" as if it were a fact equivalent to "the sun rises in the east." It is actually utter nonsense. I recall one media nuthead talking to a Russian official who said, "Look, if we had invaded Ukriane you would not have to be asking if we did it." Did anyone have to ask if we invaded Iraq? If Ukraine was at war with Russia it would lose that war in about two days.
Likewise, they keep stating that he "asked Ukraine to investigate a political rival."Also nonsense. Double nonsense in fact. Biden is not a political rival, and will not become one unless he wins the Democratic nomination. In any case, he asked Ukriane to investigate the 2016 US election, and to investigate its own internal corruption. He did not ask Ukraine to investigate Biden.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:09 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.
A federal appellate court has agreed with a lower court that Obamacares individual mandate is unconstitutional, setting the stage for a redux of the John Roberts SCOTUS ruling a few years back.
Roberts was the deciding vote on the matter, and he twisted himself into pretzel form to make it legal.
From the Breitbart article:
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans ruled, 2-1, the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which required most Americans to purchase healthcare insurance in order to avoid a penalty tax, is indeed unconstitutional.
The decision upholds that of Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and creates another likely U.S. Supreme Court face-off on the issue of former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform during a presidential election year.
The ruling stated:
he individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. On the severability question, we remand to the district court to provide additional analysis of the provisions of the ACA as they currently exist.
The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to decide the issue of severability — whether the entire law is to be struck down.
About that last; the law was specifically designed to make it unseverable to avoid shooting the whole thing down. It is the cornerstone of the law, the only way the law could be implemented. There was simply no way to pay for it without making such a large pool.
How will SCOTUS act on this? It's a new court, but again the key will be Roberts. Don't expect this to be overturned; Roberts has shown himself a proponent of this law. Also, he will have to preside over the acquittal of Donald Trump, and he will likely want to assert himself here.
Still, it's a good thing. It would be even better if another seat opened on the Court before this was reviewed.Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:02 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 3 kb.
"I’ll respect you in the morning†is what I half expect to hear. Of course, the Democrats now invoking the Founding Fathers’ memory in their effort to impeach President Trump won’t respect our colonial progenitors at the next dawn anymore than they did at the last one.
Nonetheless, the Left has interrupted its regularly scheduled programming of trying to tear down the Founders’ reputations and life’s work—the Electoral College, the First and Second Amendments, and the Constitution generally— to claim that those Enlightenment men are on their side.
Nancy Pelosi (D-Fruits and Nuts) has proclaimed that Trump’s actions "are in defiance of the vision of our Founders.†Democrat Jerrold Nadler, from the state (NY) that allows prenatal infanticide up to birth and that’s giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, asked a shill college professor of an impeachment "witness,†"If Washington were here today, if he were joined by Madison, Hamilton and other Framers, what do you believe they would say if presented with the evidence before us about President Trump’s conduct?â€
My, my, as Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson put it Tuesday evening, "Democrats care deeply and passionatelyabout the Founding Fathers.†For sure. Just watch a selection of them in Carlson’s segment below, if you have a strong stomach and high tolerance for shameless sanctimony.
Now, Nadler’s hypothetical is interesting because I’ve occasionally indulged the thought exercise of what would transpire if a Founder — let’s say, George Washington — could be resurrected from the dead. After he recovered from the shock of our technological advancement and moral debasement, I imagine he’d have lots to say.
How much of it, though, would be in praise of the Democrat program? What would he say about sex as social construct, personal pronoun tyranny, putting boys masquerading as girls in female spaces and the Sexual Devolution generally? Widespread prenatal infanticide? Open-borders cultural genocide? Rule by judicial and bureaucratic fiat? Proposals to eliminate the Electoral College and Senate? Feminism? Multiculturalism? Attacks on Christianity? The exalting of Islam? Hate crime law? High taxation? Federal overreach? The redistribution of wealth?
Speaking of which, how about socialism? Note that Founder Samuel Adams spoke for many of his comrades in warning of the "Utopian schemes of levelling, and a community of goods.†So is there one aspect of the modern Democrat agenda — just one — of which Washington or any other Founder would approve? Help me out here.
The notion is ridiculous, of course. The Founders would have an earful for most of us, don’t get me wrong, but they’d absolutely view today’s leftists as aliens.
That’s how the Left views them, too. Leftists don’t hide their disdain for "old white men,†whom they despise at least partially because that demographic most opposes their agenda. They also loathe the Founder fruit that is the Constitution — which Barack Obama bemoaned was merely "a charter of negative liberties†— basically because it’s a conservative document.
By this I don’t mean just the obvious, which is that it prescribes limited government. It’s also that conservatism is about conservingthe status quo — standing "athwart history, yelling Stop,†as William F. Buckley put it — while liberalism is about changing the status quo. Yet since the Constitution’s Amendment Process makes it painfully hard to change, the document does (when adhered to) conserve a status quo.
So it’s no surprise that lawyer and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin calledthe Constitution "broken†in 2013 and stated that outside "Washington, discontent with the founding document is bipartisan and widespread†(among pseudo-elites, yes).
Toobin pointed to a University of Texas law professor, Sanford Levinson, who, when asked if he would have signed the Constitution, reluctantly said yes in 1987 but no in 2003. Toobin was making his case for how a positive evolution of thought takes us beyond constitutional limitations, but he only demonstrated how Levinson managed to get not only older, but dumber in 16 years’ time.
But since the Democrats are now romancing the Founders, here’s another thought exercise: Imagine we could resurrect all those men and let them take the place of our current president, congressmen and senators for some years so that they could restore our government to founding principles. Would you agree? I’d sign on that dotted line.
No matter what the Democrats would say hypothetically, though, this would be their worst nightmare. Their feelings toward the Founders range from indifference to contempt to hostility, which is why they demean them in history books and propose removing monuments to Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Oh, don’t think it’s really about slavery, either. Islam’s Mohammed was not only a warlord, caravan-raider thief, mass murderer and user of torture, but a slave owner and trader. Yet no leftist would dare besmirch his memory. Nor do our liberals trouble much over Muslims’ enslavement of blacks in Africa today. No, leftists hate the Founders because they hate Americanism.
If the Founders could live again and run for office in 2019, the Left would be vicious in its vitriol, calling them racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists, xenophobes, white supremacists and, well, you know the wash-rinse-repeat pattern.
Worse still, though, is what leftists are doing to the Founders right now: associating them with themselves. Why, if the Founders weren’t in a place beyond the reach of worldly defilement, they’d likely feel in need of a Silkwood-intensity shower.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:52 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 903 words, total size 8 kb.
The latest federal budget funds border wall construction - in the Middle East. Nothing but crumbs here.
From Breitbart:
The spending bill, which is set to pass the Senate, provides Jordan with more than $7.3 billion to be used to help the country "enhance the ability of the armed forces … to increase or sustain security along its borders.†An additional $500 million is allocated to help "security along [Jordan’s] borders.â€
Another nearly $1.2 billion is available until September 2021 to "enhance the border security of nations†such as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Tunisia.
This is at least the third conservative yearthat American taxpayers have been forced to pay for border security enhancement in foreign countries in the Middle East, as Breitbart News has chronicled.
If it works there why won't it work here?And why are American taxpayers funding security for these nations? They should borrow the money from China like we do.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:26 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 2 kb.
Here are some ancient thoughts that apply to the hatefest we just witnessed:
"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory is won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.â€
own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.
If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay
where you are.
Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded
by content.
But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again
into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.â€
― Sun Tzu
The Democrats acted out of pique and will pay.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:38 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
So, what were the results of the impeachment vote? Not a single Republican voted to impeach the President, and three Democrats crossed party lines to vote against. That is impressive, given the strict party discipline employed by the Democrats. Those three will wind up working as greeters at Walmart, unless Pelosi gave them sepecial dispensations prior. That's how it works; you obey or you lose everything. They take your committee assignments, move you into a broom closet for an office, and cut off your re-election funding. Nobody remembers who you are by the time you lose your seat.
The Republicans do not work that way. It's often said the GOP caucus is like herding a clowder of cats.
According to Fox News:
Reps. Jeff Van Drew, D-N.J., and Collin Peterson, D-Minn., voted against both articles of impeachment. Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, voted in favor of impeaching Trump on abuse of power, but not on obstruction of Congress.
Another Democrat, presidential candidate and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, voted "present" on both impeachment resolutions.
This illustrates the power of the Democratic "leadership" - better described as the Central Committee. Tulsi Gabbard was afraid to vote no.Van Drew is switching parties, by the way.
Nevertrumper Justin Amash, who quit the GOP, voted to impeach, naturally.
The final tally:
The Donkeys didn't even get a straight partyline vote in favor of impeachment.
When Bill Clinton was impeached the Democrats stormed out of the hall en masse and held a rally on the steps of the Capitol building. It does not appear the Republicans did anything comparable. Granted, it was a late night vote, but still, they should have registered their displeasure in a very visual way.
Our side has to learn how to do politics. We should ahve had people interrupting the proceedings the way the Democrats did in the Kavanaugh auto da fe. I know; the argument is we look like the grownups. But we should have had some people in there protesting and then being disavowed by the GOP. That's how the Democrats do this. And it usually works for them.
I couldn't find any flash polls on the impeachment with a Google search. Strange.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:08 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.
This from John P.
Just a small step to the "Mark of the Beast."
Wisconsin Workers Embedded with Microchips
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:35 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
A friend had this to say on Facebook:
How many of you were just so excited 🤩 about getting a text from the Bernie Sanders campaign only to realize that your name was wrong? ðŸ˜.
How can I be in for Bernie, when Katherine was supposed to get the text! 😒. I’d like to know how Karalyn got my number when I didn’t sign up for texts from Bernie?🤔
A reader responded:
Naturally I couldn't let that stupidity stand:
His wife had a cushy job running a university (into the ground; she was under investigation for bank fraud for a land deal.)
As to his not being a socialist, well, the man went to the Soviet Union in 1988 ON HIS HONEYMOON,.
He calls himself a "democratic socialist". He campaigned for the Marxis "Socialist Workers Party" in 1980, 1989 in a speech to the National Committee for Independent Political Action Mr. Sanders said:
""In Vermont, everybody knows that I am a socialist and that many people in our movement, not all, are socialists. And as often as not — and this is an interesting point that is the honest-to-God truth".
So I think we can pretty much conclude that he IS a socialist, and a kleptocrat to boot.
Oh, and if he is somehow "pure" of heart is that a good thing? There is nothing more violent and evil than a pure of heart socialist. Such was Lenin. Such was Mao, Pol Pot, Che Guevera, and every other person ultimately responsible for the murders of millions to advance revolutionary causes.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:26 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 3 kb.
In a Facebook argument about impeachment one commenter asked:
- Just out of curiosity, do you feel that the actions Trump is accused of do not reach the level of impeachable or do you feel that insufficient evidence has been presented to show that he did what he’s been accused of?
Oh, and the evidence has been quite insufficient, consisting of heresay evidence and out of context excerpts. We had that ridiculous claim that Trump was overheard on the other line on the phone, for instance; Andrew Cuomo tried to repeat THAT experiment on live television and was humiliated when nobody could hear anything. You had a bunch of "well, I assumed" and other would have could have should have comments. You had a lot of people who were involved with the CIA, which is where this thing originated (Samantha Powers warned Trump "not a good idea to piss off John Brennan" and of course Trump fired Brennan. and tried to revoke his security clearance.) And of course James Comey was at the epicenter of the Hillary Clinton paid Steele Dossier,, which was a false document intended to destroy Donald Trump and used to justify the FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. So the CIA and FBI both had a hand in what is happening to Trump, and a lot of the witnesses had close ties to both. No, the impeachment evidence is not credible in the least
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:52 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.
December 18, 2019
Boris Johnson, British Prime Minister and Brexit champion, is going after George Soros for his meddling in British politics.
Soros, an American citizen of Hungarian origin and former Nazi Judas Goat, pumped three million British pounds into the campaign to overthrow Johnson in violation of British law.
His New York-based Open Society Foundation sent the money to the pro-EU Best for Britain group via a London outpost, circumventing a ban on foreign donations to political organisations.
Best for Britain (BfB) has designed a website telling people how to vote tactically for Remain-backing candidates, which, if successful, would wipe out Mr Johnson's hopes of a majority.
The development comes after Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru formed a 'Unite To Remain' pact not to stand against each other in 60 seats, to give the best chance of a Remain candidate getting in.
BfB describes itself as a 'fellow traveller' with the alliance, which is expected to utilise its data.
Soros is known as "the Man who Broke the Bank of England", making much of his fortune by predatory practices that hurt pension funds and private citizens.He funded the Ferguson riots to the tune of 33 million bucks. It is well past time Mr. Soros be investigated and prosecuted.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:34 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.
Here is an interesting development: electricity from seawater via aramid-boron nitride membrane based on living organisms.
I won't bother to excerpt this; go there and read the story for yourself. It is fascinating, though, as it may be the beginning of a new wave of alternative energy using ocean water.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:09 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
Here is a load of medical malarky, or at least a rather dubious bit of research. Funded by the National Institute of Health (a government funded entity) this study states that overweight children are, well, stupid.
From the article:
"Our hypothesis going into the study was that the thickness of the cerebral cortex would 'mediate' - or serve as an explanatory link for—the relationship between BMI and executive function," Laurent said.
The findings did confirm the relationship, according to the study's senior author, Scott Mackey, an assistant professor of Psychiatry in the University of Vermont's Larner College of Medicine.
"We found widespread thinning of cerebral cortex" among research subjects with higher BMI, Mackey said, but especially so in the prefontal area.
By "executive function" they mean memory and decision making.The study followed 3,190 nine and ten year olds, and analyzed blood as well as did brain scans.
Without seeing the methodology of the research, I rather suspect it was poor. Nothing was said about the control group, for instance. Nothing was said about the childrens' education or leisure activities.These have everything to do with brain development, as neuroplasticity is well established and how children use their brains has a large impact on neural architecture.
The authors of this study admit they didn't look at behavior.
Here is the kicker:
"With prolonged exposure to obesity, it is possible that children have chronic inflammation, and that may actually be affecting their brain in the long term," she said.
Now we get to the nub of it!
The purpose of this study is to reach the hand of government into the lives of children, taking away the decision making authority of parents. IF allowing your child to get fat causes them to develop improperly then the State has a right and duty to take away your authority.
As I say, without being privvy to the details of the research (and I don't have access to Jama articles) I can't tear this thing apart, but I know a rat when I smell one.
Our overlords in Washington fund most research in this country, and they have ulterior motives. Just look at what Michael Bloomberg did in New York; he regulated the size of sodas, for instance, in his quest to force citizens into his ideal. That is what is intended here. I do not believe a word of this study.
This "research" plays on the most odious stereotypes of overweight people being fat and lazy. It is reminiscent of the movie Animal House "fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son!" That, my friends, is the basest prejudice.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:04 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 4 kb.
There's more. Please go here https://babylonbee.com/news/the-bee-explains-impeachment for it.What is impeachment?
It's the official, constitutional method for screaming at the sky because Trump is president.
Why is Trump being impeached?
Trump has committed some very serious offenses, from not being a Democrat to being a Republican. He also won the 2016 election, which rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.He also restored the celebration of Christmas after eight years of winter with no Christmas under Obama. This drove Dems up a wall so they drummed up some charges against him.
Why didn't Democrats include any criminal offenses in the articles of impeachment?
There were just so many of them, it was hard to pick one. So, instead of laying out actually impeachable offenses, the Democrats summarized it all with two main articles of impeachment: 1.) Trump is president. 2.) TRUMP IS PRESIDENT.
What does it take to remove the president from office?
Faith, trust, and pixie dust.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:54 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:39 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.
Lookie here.
A New York state judge just tossed out charges of bank fraud against Paul Manafort.
Manafort - Trump's former campaign manager who is currently in Federal prison - was charged by New York state with fraud for not disclosing income by Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance Jr. despite Manafort serving time for the same offense. Vance is a radical Democrat and charged Manafort to prevent Trump from issuing a pardon, which is only valid in Federal cases. Manafort is serving 7 and a half years.
Judge Maxwell Riley dismissed the case after a very brief hearing, citing Double Jeapordy.
The tide seems to be turning against these radicals.
Vance vows to appeal the ruling.
If that is the way they want to play this, our side should investigate Mr. Vance and HIS financial dealings. I suspect he couldn't stand up to the same scrutiny that Manafort endured.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:15 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.
53 queries taking 0.2595 seconds, 266 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
