September 30, 2020

What Trump Should Do Next Time

Dana Mathewson

I've been reading many articles about the debate last night (9/29), and as expected, opinions are all over the place. A number of people suggest there should be no more debates since "Biden won," but that's silly. If he won, wouldn't you want him to go out and do it again? Saying he won, now let's have no more debates is a tacit admission that he lost.

But Trump committed some errors too, and here's a good article suggesting how he can improve next time.

During the first presidential debate on September 29, President Donald Trump appeared to have two distinct strategies. First, he clearly wanted to prove Democratic nominee Joe Biden could not hold his water, that his cognitive decline would not allow him to keep up with Trump. Trump also wanted to get Biden to tie himself up in knots by lurching toward the center and rejecting the radical left faction of the Democratic Party.

The extent to which Trump succeeded in these dual goals should paint his strategy for the next two debates. So, how did he do?

To the second strategy, Trump scored the biggest body blows of the match. On the two most important issues to the far left, Trump got Biden to sell out the radicals, thereby fracturing his base. Trump got Biden to say that he would not defund the police and that he didn’t support the Green New Deal. Bernie Sanders had called Biden’s campaign the most progressive in history, in an attempt to shore up the far-left base of the Democratic Party. Biden completely squandered that faction’s support and did real damage to his campaign. Without the far left, which has increasingly dominated Biden’s party, he can’t grow his support into a groundswell. That’s what base voters are for, and Biden blew it.

With his first strategy, however, Trump did not achieve his goal. Biden came off as lucid and kept his cognition together for the hour and a half or so the debate lasted. In fact, Trump’s attacking style seems to have backfired. Trump wasn’t trying to win the debate as much as he was trying to break Biden. His constant attacks, interruptions, and abrasive style had a purpose. He hoped to confuse Biden with multiple lines of attack and get him to start punching at shadows.

The first time it became clear that it wasn’t working was when Trump launched his attack on Biden’s son, Hunter. Biden became visibly riled up and even angry. Instead of causing Biden to become confused, the adrenaline rush and a father’s righteous anger in defending his son seemed to snap him into better focus.

Trump may have had the opposite of his intended effect by stimulating Biden to react instead of losing track of the conversation. The line of attack over Hunter Biden is an important issue for American voters to consider. The consistent favors he received because of who his father is, on top of the obvious connections to Russia and China, require deep scrutiny. The campaign should continue to raise those questions for the remainder of the campaign.

[...]

Instead of attack-dog mode, Trump should be the Trump who delivered the nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. In that speech, he was steady, measured, and he laid out a strong case for reelection. He never raised his voice, and at times spoke almost in a monotone. He projected strength and stability.

This approach in the next two debates may actually be more effective in challenging Joe Biden’s lucidity, especially if Trump radically changes strategies from the first debate. Biden would be on his heels, wondering where that other Trump went, and when the attacks may come. He would also be more likely to lose track of the conversation, without the sensory stimulus of constant attacks and emotionally charged accusations against his son.

Trump absolutely should repeat what worked in the first debate. Get Joe Biden to tie himself in knots over whether he will govern as a moderate or a progressive, further eroding his base.

Instead of attacking and interrupting, however, Trump should present a calm, steady message that doesn’t engage Biden emotionally.

Sounds like a winner to me. I really hope somebody on Trump's team reads this article, which is here: https://pjmedia.com/election/jeff-reynolds/2020/09/30/an-open-letter-to-the-trump-campaign-how-to-handle-the-next-two-debates-n986957 It is certainly worth a try -- assuming it can get past the "moderator." I use quotes because Chris Wallace scarcely deserved the term -- "partisan" would have been a better choice of words, and the next debates feature operatives who promise to be worse.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:07 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 766 words, total size 5 kb.

Thoughts on the Debate

Timothy Birdnow

The debates, the debates...what can I say? More of a backalley brawl really. But we could expect little elese given the circumstances.

First, Rush Limbaugh had said that IF the debate went forward it would feature Biden on endless attack and that pretty much was the case. He had to; he couldn't defend his multiple contrary positions and his failure to actually solve problems despite his decades in "public service". And, with the aid of Chris Wallace, a man who is on record as despising the President, it meant Mr. Trump would have little choice but interrupt and snarl.

And make no mistake; Wallace threw repeated heat at the President but never once anything more than a softball at Captain Peachfuzz Joe Biden. Wallace kept going back to Covid, over and over. Why? Because it is conventional wisdom that Trump screwed that up and Wallace wanted to keep Trump on the defensive. Why didn't Wallace ask Biden about statements he made early on during the pandemic? Not a word.

And of course he went after Trump over taxes while ignoring the fact that Mr. Biden has his own tax problems. Wallace never once asked Biden about his son Hunter, and the millions both Hunter and Joe have made from Ukraine, Russia, and China over the years. Nothing, nada, the null set. Meanwhile Wallace spent his time interrupting Trump (who, granted, was interrupting Biden but he never interrupted the former Veep when HE was interrupting.)

In short, Wallace ran interference for Uncle Joe all night.

Second, Biden was clearly on uppers. His eyes glowed in a way that can only be achieved by the use of stimulants. And I got very close to the television and looked into both of the former Veep's ears; his right ear showed a dark concavity, meaning nothing was obstructing the opening. BUT I noticed there was no comparable dark spot in his left ear. I am certain they had him using a flesh-colored earpiece. Trump had wanted both parties to be searched for that before the debate; Mr. Biden had refused.

So Joe was likely on stimulants to keep him from breaking down and being fed answers.

Trump had to be extra combative. They would have screwed him as badly as Hillary did Sanders.

Which does bring up the question; how prepared WAS Biden? Remember, Fox News employs Donna Brazil, who actually fed the questions to Hillary for her debate with Bernie. Did Biden get a preview of the debate questions?

At any rate, the spinmeisters were immediately calling it a big win for Biden.

Wallace also kept trying to get Trump to call out "white supremacists" who "support him". Trump kept asking exactly who and given no answer. This was a sneaky trick; if he said "sure, I think white supremacists are evil and I want nothing to do with them" the headline would be "Trump turns on his white supporters" or whatnot. Trump danced around this (poorly, I feel, but as best he could) but Wallace kept pushing it. Wallace never actually asked Biden to disavow BLM, and of course Biden wouldn't do so.

Wallace also promoted the fake news claim that Trump said there were good people on both sides, meaning he "dog whistled" his acceptance of racists at Charlottesville. Wallace knows exactly what Mr. Trump said, and why he said it. (For new readers who may not, the Charlottesville riots were a peaceful protest against the rumoval of historical statues. BLM and Antifa showed up and started cracking skulls. Yes, there were some fringe groups from racists who showed up, but that was not the intent of the rally and most of the people there were "good people" who were there to peacefully protest. Trump said as much and his words were twisted to try to sever him from his growing black supporters. Wallace knows that.)

At any rate, it was a rollicking-good time!  I laughed my way through the whole undignified spectacle. I've always hated those debates anyway because they are basically pre-planned commercials, with the candidates giving canned speeches and stock answers. No real debating occurs. And in most cases they are passionless and pointless. With Trump no debating occurs either, but a Jerry Springer-esque brawl ensues. If you are going to watch such a thing you may as well have some entertainment. Nobody could claim for a moment this was not entertaining.

They did manage to make Joe look less demented, though, and I am sure they alleviated some fears of the blue collar people who traditionally vote Democrat. I had rather hoped Biden would go and take a swing at Trump, but then that would have been far too much to hope for. He DID call Trump a  Bozo and other insulting names - something Trump never did. Trump merely called Biden out.

Politics in America is little more than a show. It has been that way for a long time now, at least since Bill Clinton and actually before. Everyone loved Clinton for his strongarm tactics and unwillingness to yield. Will this be true of Trump?  Despite the worst press in human history Mr. Trump seems to touch on a primal wellspring. He champions those who have had no champion for a long time. He, as was said of Clinton, mirrors the alleged black experience; a guy with the Man after him all the time. (Remember when they called Clinton the first Black President? That was the reasoning, that and he liked to eat greasy food, something also true of The Donald.) Most people still admire someone who doesn't lay down, doesn't surrender. Trump is like a honey badger or a wolverine; not the biggest or strongest or fastest but the most ferocious. In the wild animals leave badgers and wolverines alone solely for that reason. They know they are crazy enough to fight to the death on general principle. Trump is a bit like that.

Biden, on the other hand, will never actually be the President. He has little color and no principles. He fought well last night, but only out of his arrogance and little else. I hope everyone realizes Biden will return us to the New World Order, where we obey the U.N., NATO, and other international outfits and where we allow all of Central America to come to stay and where we let China suck all of our industry and jobs away. (That was planned by the internationalists, I might add; Madeleine Halfbright  Albright famously said it was bad America was the sole superpower and she and her friends set about promoting China as a "counterbalance" to us. And so many of the U.N. people have admitted things like Climate Change are about institution world socialism and international government. Democratic policy - and Republican, by and large - have been aimed at that for a long time now. Biden will only accelerate the process of the creation of the new Babel.

At any rate, I don't know if this debate made any difference one way or another, but it sure was fun!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:45 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1186 words, total size 7 kb.

September 29, 2020

Police investigating ballot harvesting allegations following Project Veritas videos involving Ilhan Omar

Dana Mathewson

I have to say that Minnesota, or at least the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, is doing its level best to become as politically corrupt as New York, Chicago and Detroit. When Keith Ellison was elected as our Attorney General, the conventional wisdom was that we'd never have an honest election in the state again, and consequently we're seeing things like this:

The Minneapolis Police Department said it's investigating "allegations of voter fraud” after a conservative activist group released videos that provide insight into an alleged illegal vote-buying scheme tied to Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar.

In a statement Monday responding to the videos released by Project Veritas, the MPD said it has been made "aware of the allegations of vote harvesting” and is "in the process of looking into the validity of those statements.”

"No further information is available at this time on this,” the department stated.

On Sunday, the undercover group Project Veritas, founded by James O'Keefe in 2010, sent shock waves across the U.S. political system when it released findings from its undercover investigation into the campaign of Omar, a Somali American who was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018.

On Monday, the group released a second video that shows a ballot harvester affiliated with Omar paying for ballots.

In the first video, O’Keefe says he's exposing a "voter fraud ring so widespread that many members of the Somali community here consider it an open secret.”

"Our sources inside the Somali community here allege that the architect of this pay-for-vote scheme is none other than U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar,” he said.

The group shared a video that featured comments from "insider” Omar Jamal, who secretly recorded dozens of conversations to "expose vote by mail fraud” in the Minneapolis area.

 

Among the clips released in the first two Project Veritas videos is a social media clip of a man bragging about his car being filled with 300 absentee ballots (some still open) that were to be cast in support of Minneapolis City Council Member Jamal Osman, who was victorious in an August special election.

The group also published a surreptitiously recorded video that shows a man buying a ballot from a voter with "pocket money.” O’Keefe said the amount was $200.

"I think Ilhan Omar is one of the people behind all this mess,” Jamal, chairman of the Somali Watchdog group, said. "And they have a lot of people that work for them that tasks get carried out and ballots collected. This is the cash money, exchanging hands.”

"It’s an open secret that everybody knows it but they don’t talk about it,” Jamal added, stating that 80,000 immigrant voters will "swing this election to one side.”

 

I have read in other places that Dear Ilhan isn't wondrously beloved in her own community because of her fast-and-loose attitude about the sanctity of marriage. I can't vouch for that, unfortunately.

This article is found here: https://www.christianpost.com/news/police-investigating-ballot-harvesting-allegations-after-project-veritas-videos-involving-ilhan-omar.html Meanwhile, thank goodness for groups such as Project Veritas, as well as Omar Jamal!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:01 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 4 kb.

Amy Coney Barrett and the Zealots

Selwyn Duke

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is in the grip of "dogmas.” So goes a criticism made by, ironically, the most dogmatic of people. In fact, the gripe reflects a certain dogma-born prejudice. Oh, I don’t speak of the anti-Catholic, anti-"religious,” anti-pro-life and anti-conservative varieties, though they’re also present. Nor do I refer to how a Muslim nominee would never be subjected to such scorn. Rather, the prejudice here is seldom recognized and something even good people may exhibit.

"The dogma lives loudly in you,” Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) told Barrett in 2017 during the latter’s nomination hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. My answer to the senator would have begun with a simple but sage statement:

"In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don’t know it.”

This was written by potentate of profundity G.K. Chesterton in 1923, and he was, of course, correct (and still is). One of Feinstein’s apparent dogmas, for instance, is a common one: that only religious people have dogmas.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists "dogma’s” very first definition as "a: something held as an established opinion,” and, boy, the Left’s minions aren’t short on established opinions. They take as self-evident, for example, that "racism,” "sexism,” "homophobia” and "transphobia” are wrong.

Moreover, the Left’s latest dogmatic model — labeled "wokeness” with typical Idiocracy-level sophistication — upholds many additional dogmas: "white privilege,” Critical Race Theory dictates, that police unfairly target blacks, abortion is civil right, etc. The Left also dogmatically punishes "heretics” with a societal enforcement mechanism called "cancel culture.”

Some may respond that, unlike "religious” dogmas, the aforementioned have not been officialized. But this is a false argument. First, many leftists’ dogmas are part of the Democratic Party’s and other liberal organization’s platforms/guiding principles. More significantly, however, a belief’s correctness or incorrectness isn’t altered by its organizational adoption.
You’ll vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if you’re true to the Constitution because it does not guarantee a "right” to abortion

Its nature is what it is, and, in fact, beliefs are always embraced "informally” (at least by some) before they’re ever declared official organization positions. Why, Catholic beliefs, some of which so trouble the left-wing dogmatists, were themselves held as true by many faithful Catholics long before being declared dogma (e.g., the Trinity, not established as official Church doctrine until the Council of Nicea in 325).

Furthermore, it is personal, passionately held dogma that’s far more relevant to an individual’s job performance than dogma officially declared by an organization with which he may have some association.

Consider "Catholic” Justice Sonya Sotomayor. Since her judicial opinions certainly aren’t constrained by constitutional dictates, ask yourself what appears to most inform them. Catholic teaching…or what we currently call "leftism”? Because something does.

The point is that everyone has a world view — a philosophical foundation — that shapes his positions on everything else.

For example, if you believe man is divinely created and infused with a soul upon conception, you’ll almost assuredly be pro-life. But if you’re an atheist, declared or de facto, and consider man just a soulless organic robot comprising some pounds of chemicals and water, you may subscribe to the baby-as-unviable-tissue-mass thesis. Both these positions reflect dogmas. But the dogmas are only recognized as such with respect to the pro-life position because they happen to be dogmas the culture-shaping pseudo-elites, ever blind to their own dogmas, don’t like.

Either way, though, you’ll vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if you’re true to the Constitution because it does not guarantee a "right” to abortion. This is where it gets interesting, however.

This constitutional adherence, by the way, is precisely what leftists don’t want despite their claims to the contrary

It’s clear that so-called "religious” justices — such as Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia — who certainly believe there’s a higher law than the Constitution and are supposedly "enslaved by dogma,” are nonetheless far more likely to adhere to our founding document than their more "secular” colleagues.

This isn’t merely because, as I’ve explained, the Constitution is by its nature a "conservative” document. It’s not even just that "religious” justices apparently take oaths more seriously, especially those concluding with "So help me God.”

It’s also, first, that since they recognize ours as an ordered universe of moral absolutes, they’re oriented toward absolutes and are more likely to accept legal absolutes as just that — like them or not. Second, having the humility born of worshipping God and accepting that they’re not Him, they’re less apt to deify themselves and play God.

This constitutional adherence, by the way, is precisely what leftists don’t want despite their claims to the contrary. They instead want likeminded justices who view the Constitution as, to quote Thomas Jefferson, "a mere thing of wax…which they may twist and shape in to any form they please.”

Speaking of which, it is these "liberal/secular” judges who upon nomination to a higher court should be grilled mercilessly. They should be asked: "With what dogma do you justify, wholly contrary to the framers’ intent, treating the Constitution as a "living document”?

Implicit in Feinstein’s Barrett criticism, that authentic "religiosity” should be a disqualifying factor

The most fundamental answer is one they wouldn’t offer even if they were introspective enough to grasp it. To wit: They reject Truth (absolute by definition) and thus are relativists — and, ultimately, such people too often make everything relative to themselves (My will be done!). Hence the judicial thing-of-wax rationalization called "pragmatism.”

Speaking of illusions, there’s another common prejudice here, one related to that concerning dogmas. It’s the idea, implicit in Feinstein’s Barrett criticism, that authentic "religiosity” should be a disqualifying factor. It’s also reflected in our "separation of church and state” (which is not in the Constitution) dogma, which places "religion” on the back of the bus. But consider:

If the ideas in question really are handed down by God, the Creator of the Universe and Author of All, don’t we have an obligation to infuse our public square and schools with them? To this the secularists will say, "Well, that’s your belief — in sky fairies. But these ideas are just man-made.”

Yet if so, why discriminate against them? Why say that ideas we happen to call "secular” may be in the public square but those we happen to call "religious” may not be? If they’re all man-made, wherein lies the relevant difference?

The truth hiding in plain sight is that in the most important sense, the religious/secular distinction is a false distinction. Note here that the current predominant usage of "secular” dates back only to the mid-19th century. In fact, once upon a time in the West the religious vs. secular dichotomy would have made no sense to people at all. Our remote ancestors viewed the relevant distinction as being, most simply put, the true vs. the untrue.

Now, you may take issue with, let’s say, medieval man’s conception of Truth, but the logic is airtight. Consider: If Marxism is essentially false, what’s most significant: that we call it "secular” or that it’s untrue? If God is real, what’s most significant: that belief in Him is labeled "religious” or that it is true?

Oh, and for those assuming there’s some greater correlation between so-called "secularism” and what’s true, the birth of Nazism, fascism, Marxism and other sordid and sundry isms says otherwise.

There is only the true and the untrue — anything obscuring this reality is dark unreality.

And the truth about Amy Coney Barrett is, quite possibly, not that the Democrats are afraid she’ll impose Catholicism. They’re perhaps afraid that because she honors God, she’ll also honor her oath and impose constitutionalism.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:02 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1299 words, total size 9 kb.

And the Dead Shall Rise...

Warner Todd Huston

Colorado Dem. Sec. of State Sends Cards to Remind Dead and Ineligible People to Register to Vote

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

War between Armenia and Azerbaijan

Mark Musser

It was a very serious day on the battlefields of Nagarno-Karabakh just to the east of Armenia about 2-4 hours away from here in Yerevan on the other side of the mountains as almost 70 Armenian soldiers died as I heard tonight from some Armenian friends. Yet it most certainly appears that the Nagarno-Karabakh, which includes Armenian soldiers as well, is having success on the front. The Defense Minister said after they repulsed the Azerbaijani invasion, they are now ready to go into Azerbaijan itself as the casualties on the Azerbaijani side are undoubtedly greater in both men and equipment.

All of this, of course, will escalate everything in the entire region, but they have no choice. Azerbaijan has 5 times the population of Armenia and is oil rich. Their allies are the Turks, a country of more than 80 million. Armenia has 3 million people, if even that, and is a poor country, sandwiched in between them both. The math is not good, and the odds are even worse.

One of our better friends here in Armenia also had to go visit a couple of young boys he knows in the hospital from the village he lives in. One young man had both his legs blown off, and is unconscious - not sure if he will make it. They are both 18 years old. Our friend also told us that many of the young men of the village he lives in are in the heat of the battles going on right now in Nagorno-Karabakh so that more such casualties are sure to come.

Nagorno-Karabakh has been in Armenian hands for thousands of years, but has been in the crossfire of any number of different empires, nations, and countries over the centuries who have fought on their territory, many times successfully so at their expense. While it finally looked like they might me able to go back to the Armenian motherland after the horrific genocidal fallout of World War I, which even originally had strong international backing, that was all betrayed by Stalin in the early 1920's - a mess that continues to reverberate down to today after almost 100 years. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Nagorno-Karabakh decided to breakaway from Azerbaijani control which led to a bloody war in the early 1990's. Flare ups do occasionally occur, but this looks like the most serious one since the war ended in 1994.

The name Nagorno-Karabakh means something like "Mountain Garden" in Russian. More than 95% of the Nagarno-Karabakh is made up of Armenians. It would be a disaster for them if it fell into the hands of the Azerbaijanis.

Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia are both under marital law right now. Please pray for Armenia at this very serious time. Pray for us too! - news.am/eng/news/604707.html

(Mark Musser is currently residing in Armenia.)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 3 kb.

Lying by Omission

This from Stephen Heinz:

New York Times reporting strikes again. The facts of this incident are that this woman rammed a group of pro-police protesters. The Times clarified their story today, but I can’t even find their correction doing a search. The Times is no more reliable than the National Enquirer these days.

California Driver Charged After Striking Two Protesters

Fox news caught them at it, too. https://www.foxnews.com/media/car-trump-supporters-ny-times

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Tonight's Presidential Farce

Timothy Birdnow

Two quick thoughts on the debate tonight. First, Chris Wallace hates Trump. He is a registered Democrat https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/business/media/chris-wallace-fox-news.html and former aid to the very left wing Walter Chronkite as well as son to what was one of the most liberal journalists in America. He's going to not just throw softballs to Biden while going after the President, but he's going to probably pull some dirty trick on Mr. Trump much like Candy Crowley did to Mitt Romney during his debate with Barack Obama. (You may remember; Romney rightly pointed out Obama never said the Benghazi attacks were an act of terrorism but rather that he blamed  them on "anger" at a film. Crowley came out on Obama's side at a heated moment, mentioning Obama mumbled something about terrorism in his Rose Garden address the next day - although she didn't use the word mumble. It was a setup, a dirty trick. She knew what Romney was saying was accurate; she got her marching orders from the DNC.)

Also we should remember Meghan Kelly's attack on Trump for his alleged "sexism" since he insulted people like Rosie O'Donnell. It was not germane to any issue in the debate; it was intended to split Trump from the female vote. Kelly, who sued Fox and then moved to the very liberal NBC, was clearly auditioning for a starring network role, and used the debate as a tool to attack then candidate Trump.

I expect this to happen with Chris Wallace tonight. I rather suspect Wallace may have HIS eye on a spot on NBC or whatnot.

At any rate, watch out for some dirty trick from him.

The other thought I have is I can see no way they can let Biden loose. He's a loose cannon; a huge chunk of unsecured pig-iron rattling around deck. While rumor has it Biden has been taking cognitive improvement narcotics (some of which have been banned due to dangers to the patient) I still think they will fear putting him up there - especially as Biden is always threatening to punch people, like an alzheimers' patient often does. I suspect they'll give him a hidden earpiece. Even so, if he loses it the public will be reluctant to support the ticket. So either they have to cancel at the last second or the moderators will have to protect him to the hilt. There is NO WAY that could be left to chance.

This thing will be a farce. Mark my words.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:29 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 2 kb.

The Lakes of Mars

Timothy Birdnow

Under-ice lakes at the Martian poles.

 Much like ones found in Antarctica and Greenland, but these are probably pretty saline to prevent them freezing in the bitterly cold Martian environment. It still brings up an interesting prospect; where there is water there is often life on Earth. Do we have Martian microbes dwelling beneath the polar caps on the Red Planet? Granted, this water is still bitterly cold, but who knows? Question is how much geothermal energy would they have to feed on.

The article states:

"But in 2018, scientists unveiled a bombshell discovery - they'd found evidence of a colossal underground reservoir of liquid water at the Martian south pole.

Now, they've taken that discovery a crucial step forward. There's not one, but an entire network of multiple lakes under the southern polar ice cap. And that means that the first reservoir was not a one-off or a freak of Martian nature.

"The existence of a single subglacial lake could be attributed to ad-hoc conditions such as the presence of a volcano under the ice sheet, or some other situation unique to the specific location where we found the first subglacial lake," explained geophysicist Elena Pettinelli of Roma Tre University in Italy to ScienceAlert. She led the research alongside colleague Sebastian Emanuel Lauro.

"The discovery of an entire system of lakes instead, suggests their formation process to be relatively simple and possibly common."

We live in exciting times! Scary but exciting.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:42 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

Biden Hidin from the Tax Man

Timothy Birdnow

Biden avoided paying taxes and possibly broke a few laws in the meantime.

Western Journalism dishes:

While the Joe Biden campaign was quick to leap on a New York Times story that President Donald Trump paid a small amount in personal income taxes in recent years, it is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Joe and his wife Jill Biden funneled millions in income through a pair of S corporations they set up in Delaware as a way to circumnavigate paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, according to an August opinion article in The Wall Street Journal.

Of the nearly $13.3 million the couple took in primarily through speaking fees and book royalties during the 2017 and 2018 tax years, they claimed just $750,000 in income.

The other 94 percent of the money passed through the corporations as a direct distribution to the Bidens, preventing it from being subject to the 15.3 percent combined Social Security and Medicare tax rate, according to CNBC.

The Internal Revenue Service requires S corps to pay "reasonable compensation” to employee shareholders before making non-wage distributions to them.

As is always the case, the Democrats are busily accusing their opponents of that which they are themselves guilty.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

Flee Tibet!

Timothy Birdnow

"Free Tibet" is becoming "Flee Tibet". China is the model our Progressive friends want to impose on the U.S.A.

Fifteen Percent of Tibet's Population is Transferred to Chinese Training Centers as Labor Program Expands: Report

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:03 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

September 28, 2020

Gun control group dodges guns in swing state ad campaign

Dana Mathewson

Mike Bloomberg's Everytown gun control-pushing group knows its message only resonates in solid blue leftist states. So when they try to push an agenda in swing states they know they have to come sailing in under false colors.

Fox News reports:

The nation's largest gun-control group dodged guns entirely in a new swing state ad campaign that abandons the group's core issue to focus on health care.

Documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, supported in large part by donations from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, is funding ads that assail Republicans on health care rather than gun control. The ads target state-level politicians in Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona and Minnesota. The postcard-style ads, copies of which are posted to the back end of the group's website, have nearly identical wording.

In an ad against Republican state Rep. Andrew Lewis, the group accused him of helping to "take health care away from Pennsylvanians" but makes no mention of guns.

Everytown has largely avoided Second Amendment issues when trying to woo voters in swing states. The group minimized gun control in attack ads aimed at Republican senators running for reelection in Iowa and North Carolina earlier this month. The decision indicates Everytown has determined issues like health care and energy production are more persuasive to swing-state voters – many of whom may have recently become gun owners– according to J. Miles Coleman, associate editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

"It looks like they've made the calculation that emphasizing health care, as opposed to gun control, is a better way to get Democrats elected to those seats," Coleman told the Free Beacon.

Well, well! They've figured out that gun control doesn't fly everywhere. How do you suppose they figured that out? Maybe "Beto" O'Rourke's little crash-and-burn act during the primaries was a tip-off? As for me, I'm waiting to see if anything about "taking your guns" slips out of Sleepy Joe's mouth during the debates. I rather doubt that any of the moderators will bring the subject up, but the President might.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:36 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 4 kb.

COVID in Five Midwestern States

Dana Mathewson

An article by Power Line founder John Hinderaker shows, among other things, that the "pandemic" is really less serious than many people make it out to be. There are some interesting figures here, and I wonder what the vaunted Dr. Fauci would say if hit by these out of the clear blue?

Several months ago, I wrote a series of posts about COVID in the five Upper Midwestern states. The comparisons seemed useful because the states are similar in many respects, but their responses to the Wuhan epidemic were very different. Now that more water has gone over the dam, it is a good time to revisit those comparisons.

These are the currently reported rates of "COVID deaths” for the Upper Midwestern states–again, bearing in mind that a "COVID death” is, in most if not all jurisdictions, the death of someone who probably had COVID, regardless of what actually killed him or her.

Minnesota: 0.00036
Wisconsin: 0.00022
Iowa: 0.00040
North Dakota: 0.00025
South Dakota: 0.00023

A few observations come immediately to mind. The first is that a disease with a fatality rate that begins with 0.000 is quite minor. It is remarkable that we have twisted our entire society and economy out of shape, devastating the lives of tens if not hundreds of millions, over this flu bug.

Second, we are seeing a convergence of "fatality” rates among states. When I was following these numbers several months ago, Minnesota’s death rate was around 2 1/2 times that of South Dakota and North Dakota. Now, the Dakotas are catching up, although Minnesota’s fatality rate is still substantially higher. This isn’t hard to explain: any communicable disease spreads more rapidly in densely populated areas. It will spread in the countryside, too, but more slowly. That is what we have been seeing around the country in the past few months, as rural areas are catching up to more urbanized areas.

Third, the data reveal the utter futility of "shutdown” measures such as those that have been enforced in Minnesota and other states. In this sample, the correlation between severity of shutdown and fatality rate is actually negative. South Dakota never adopted a shutdown and has a much lower rate of purported COVID deaths than Minnesota, which had (and still has) one of the harshest shutdown regimes in the country. North Dakota, which had a shutdown but a relatively casual one, also does much better than Minnesota.

Of these comparisons, the most interesting is that between Wisconsin and Minnesota. Both had shutdowns for a while, but Wisconsin’s was invalidated by that state’s Supreme Court. This event was greeted with schadenfreude by Minnesota’s liberals, as in this tweet by the head of the DFL party, with a cartoon by the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s left-wing editorial cartoonist:

And since tweets just don't copy properly, you'll want to go here https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/covid-19-in-five-states-revisited.php to see it.

Hinderaker continues:

To say that the Wisconsin disaster failed to materialize is an understatement, as the above numbers show. By any measure, Wisconsin has far outperformed Minnesota despite having no shutdown order in place, and despite being open for business. (Some would say, sort of like how the Green Bay Packers outperform the Minnesota Vikings.) The only reasonable conclusion is that COVID shutdowns have been, at best, useless.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:59 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

"Affordable Care"?

This from Steven Chase:

Lot's of talk about ACA (Obamacare). Here are some ironclad facts:
1. 'Affordable' it wasn't. Over 90% who 'afford' it receive subsidies or assistance from the federal government to pay for it.
2. Healthcare Costs nationally continued to skyrocket, up 50% across the board. Obamacare premiums up 75% in 10 yrs.
3. 'More choice'. Most states only have one provider "to chose from". 'Keep your doctor?' - a joke.
4. 'More people will be insured' - despite a booming economy the national uninsured rate ticked up last year, from 7.9 to 8.5 percent.
5. And the COST... ACA is currently estimated at a net cost of $1.207 TRILLION dollars by 2022. - non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Each trillion is one thousand Billions!
6. Heathcare Industry, as a whole, is vastly more profitable today than 10 years ago. Avg. stock price has tripled since 2010.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

Biden "I am not a Crook"

This from Richard Cronin:

Actual statements, caps are mine:

Joe Biden: "Do I look like a Socialist ? Look at my career. My whole career. I AM NOT A SOCIALIST.”

Richard Nixon: "And I think, too, that I could say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. WELL, I AM NOT A CROOK.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:56 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

The Mother of All Vote Theft

This from our Down Under Brother James Doogue:

When many seats are decided by fewer than 3% of the vote, mass mail-out ballots will be a disaster for US democracy in what will already be the most contentious presidential election in US history.

Here I present evidence that voter fraud is particularly easy and common when it comes to mail-out ballots. Read the links I have provided for more detail.

Democrats try to deny that fraud happens with absentee voter ballots in the US. This proof of voter harvesting clearly shows it isn't uncommon or difficult. It's just no that widely reported or prosecuted. https://nypost.com/2020/09/27/project-veritas-uncovers-ballot-harvesting-fraud-in-minnesota/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=facebook_app

The Democrats want to make voter harvesting legal!

More recently 84,000 mail-in ballots were found to be invalid in a New York City primary ballot. https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/84000-mail-in-ballots-disqualified-in-nyc-primary-election/

If the Democrats get their way, ballot papers will be sent out to tens of millions of inactive voters around the country. They become inactive because they move to another district and don't amend their records, die, or leave the country. But all of those ballot papers could be used illegally. In California alone there are 5 million known inactive voters. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/20/calif_begins_removing_5_million_inactive_voters_on_its_rolls__140602.html

In the last four US elections 28 million mail-in ballots have come missing. More than enough to have swayed every single election. And that's with most states no operating mass mail-in ballots. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/24/28_million_mail-in_ballots_went_missing_in_last_four_elections_143033.html

One Democrat insider who's credentials were verified, but whose identity was protected, explained how easy voter fraud is with mail-in ballots. https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/

Ballots found dumped, voters not receiving their ballots, and ballots going missing from the postal services are some issues in recently held mail-in ballots. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mail-absentee-ballots-found-wisconsin-ditch

Another massive potential area of fraud is allowing any ballots postmarked the date of the election, to be counted. Firstly, that means the results of an election might not be known for weeks after the election as slow postal services mail comes in. Secondly, it opens a huge window for fraud.

How difficult would it be to get a post office postmarking printer and as the election results come in, start postmarking the fraudulent voter ballots for your favoured candidate who's coming up short in the count. Many counts are close enough to have results changed in swing states. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916012284/rule-changes-in-swing-states-mean-more-votes-will-count-results-may-take-longer

Why is it that the Democrats love the idea of mass mail-out ballots, and the Republicans hate it?

- Traditionally most voter ballot fraud has favoured Democrats.

- Intending Democrat voters are more likely not to turn up to polling stations on the day. Getting them to vote by mail is will increase the Democrat vote.

- Democrats have armies of paid union workers, and community organisers, and heaps of federal, state and local government 'establishment' workers who could be utilised in voter harvesting operations.

It is madness to introduce mass mail-out voter ballots without proper trials, for what will probably be the most contentious presidential election in history. It simply affords the opportunity to further deny or dispute the election outcome.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 4 kb.

September 27, 2020

Military Ballots Found in the Trash in Pennsylvania—All Were Trump Votes

Dana Mathewson

No such thing as vote fraud? How about this? At least they were found!

Mail-in ballots from the military serving overseas were found in the trash in Pennsylvania.The ballots were discovered during an investigation into election issues in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. They were all votes for President Trump.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office Middle District of Pennsylvania released a statement on the situation on Thursday:

On Monday, September 21, 2020, at the request of Luzerne County District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis, the Office of the United States Attorney along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Scranton Resident Office, began an inquiry into reports of potential issues with a small number of mail-in ballots at the Luzerne County Board of Elections.

Since Monday, FBI personnel working together with the Pennsylvania State Police have conducted numerous interviews and recovered and reviewed certain physical evidence. Election officials in Luzerne County have been cooperative. At this point we can confirm that a small number of military ballots were discarded. Investigators have recovered nine ballots at this time. Some of those ballots can be attributed to specific voters and some cannot. All nine ballots were cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump.

While nine ballots have been recovered, it is not clear how many were actually discarded.

This announcement comes on the heels of a report that three trays of mail, including absentee ballots, were discovered in a ditch in Wisconsin.

At least people are out looking for this kind of shenanigans! This is a short article, here: https://pjmedia.com/election/matt-margolis/2020/09/24/military-ballots-found-in-the-trash-in-pennsylvania-all-were-trump-votes-n964614 . Keep looking for more of the same.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:52 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 3 kb.

Pelosi Plan to Term Limit SCOTUS

Timothy Birdnow

Well, well, well...

Democrats Prepare Bill Limiting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Terms to 18 Years

Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court's legitimacy.

What of the U.S. Constitution which states:

"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

The Constitution has lifetime tenure, and that was a sticking point for the anti-Federalists. Alexander Hamilton and the other Federalists argued it was necessary to maintain objectivity of the courts.

But now, since they are losing their power, the Left seeks to diminish the threat of a conservative court by putting on term limits without a Constitutional amendment.

So very typical.

I think this is a measure of their desperation. It seems Nancy and the gang are fairly convinced they are going to lose.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:12 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 2 kb.

Chaos in Sweden

Timothy Birdnow

There was chaos in Sweden over the summer and it had nothing to do with Covid 19.

From the U.K. Spectator:

‘We have an obvious problem,’ admitted the Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven recently. He was referring not to the Covid pandemic, but to a summer of crime that has left even jaded Swedes reeling in disbelief. There are regular bombings, hand grenade attacks and shootings. Young men are killing each other at a horrific rate — ten times that of Germany. The feeling is growing that the government has completely lost control. Yet, while Löfven has finally acknowledged the existence of the problem, he still seems in denial about its true nature.

Last month in Botkyrka, south of Stockholm, a 12-year-old girl walking her dog was killed by a stray bullet from a gang shooting — and in a TV interview her friends explained that shootings are simply part of daily life in their neighbourhood. One child said that she hears gunfire from her bedroom window almost every night. And this is perhaps what’s most shocking for older Swedes: how resigned the children in these areas are; how much they’ve grown used to the violence.

It is all too much for Mats Löfving, the deputy national police chief, who earlier this month decided to speak plainly about the nature of the criminals he and his colleagues are fighting. There are at least 40 family-based criminal networks — or clans — in Sweden, he confirmed: immigrants who came to the country ‘solely for the purpose of organising and systematising crime’. According to Löfving, they make their money through drug-traffickin g and extortion and ‘have a great capacity for violence’.

The interview was a bombshell. The Prime Minister has always tried to talk about crime as a socioeconomic problem — and he stuck to this line in response to Löfving, saying that ‘I do not want to link crime to ethnicity’. — a government mantra which insinuates that even asking questions about the link between crime and immigration is xenophobic. But the issue, of course, is not skin colour. It’s about the problem of an imported type of crime: families from non-Swedishcult ures who stay in their own circles and prey on Swedes of all ethnicities. These are people who have set up parallel systems of government that challenge the Swedish state — something that politicians cannot bring themselves to acknowledge.

Conflicts between rival criminals last month escalated to a point where gangs took an unparalleled move to establish their dominance. Masked and armed men set up roadblocks, and controlled cars entering certain neighbourhoods in Gothenburg. Streets were deserted as the gangs ordered residents to stay inside. The headmaster of a local school put it bluntly: ‘Checkpoints controlled by criminal militia are something I last saw in Afghanistan. I never thought it would become a reality in Sweden.’

Even this article, hard hitting though it be, refused to say WHICH immigrants we are talking about. We all know; it's the Muslims the Swedish government allowed in as refugees. Still everyone tiptoes around the problem.

How long will the West continue on the course of cultural, ethnic, and religious extinction?

Hat tip; Roger Bell.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 4 kb.

Religious Test

This from Dr. Roy Spencer:

If during the confirmation hearings any Dem senator (again) attempts to malign Judge Barrett based upon her religious beliefs, I hope they are immediately threatened with censure. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution forbids any religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position. One would hope that U.S. Senators have at least a passing knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:43 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 9 >>
161kb generated in CPU 0.19, elapsed 0.4955 seconds.
52 queries taking 0.3757 seconds, 215 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Always on Watch
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Behind the Black
Canada Free Press
Christian Daily Reporter
Climatescepticsparty,,a>
_+
Daren Jonescu
Dana and Martha Music On my Mind Conservative Victory
Eco-Imperialism
Gelbspan Files Infidel Bloggers Alliance
The Reform Club
Revolver
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
FunMurphys
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Powerline
Publius Forum
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at bgocciaatoutlook.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 71427
  • Files: 18144
  • Bytes: 1507.8M
  • CPU Time: 540:03
  • Queries: 2674100

Content

  • Posts: 20563
  • Comments: 66753

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0