September 23, 2017
The "Russian Collusion" investigation by Robert Mueller is turning into a Constitutional quagmire. Fox Business reports:
"In May, Rosenstein penned a memo criticizing then-FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the investigation in Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. That memo was then cited by the Trump administration for reasoning behind Comey’s firing later that month.
To further complicate the investigation, Rosenstein’s position places him as the overseer of the Justice Department’s investigation into the Trump team’s alleged ties to Russia after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself.
"We’re faced with a constitutional mess over at the Justice Department, where Rosenstein is being interviewed by the guy he’s supposed to be supervising in theory,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs on "Lou Dobbs Tonight.”
If Sessions refuses to "un-recuse” himself from the investigation, President Donald Trump should exercise his authority under the Constitution to remove Mueller from the special counselor, he said.
Earlier this week, CNN reported that U.S. investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort under special court orders, both before and after the November presidential election."
Rosenstein is now in a position where HE cannot fire Mueller, thus essentially neutralizing him. I wonder if this wasn't Mueller's plan in investigating Rosenstein all along. Trump would face catastrophic political fallout if he sacked Mueller and with Sessions out it falls to a man who is now under investigation. That's a cute little trick there.
Jeff Sessions should appoint a prosecutor to investigate the prosecutor - as part of an investigation into Comey and collusion with Hillary. In warfare if you don't have overwhelming numbers you do not launch a direct assault but rather you flank - which is what Mueller is trying to do here. It's time Sessions and Trump flank Mr. Mueller and his army of Democratic operatives, and to do that he should be put under the microscope himself.
When will the Republicans learn how to do this stuff? You can understand why Trump isn't doing it, but Sessions should know to make this move. The longer they let Mueller run wild the worse it will be.
And once again, it's not in his favor.
The link "says it." The girl was 15 years old, by the way. If this guy weren't a Democrat, and a former Congressman to boot, he'd be in jail already.
Wait a minute -- do you suppose Bill and Hillary are vouching for him?
Eye Of Newt And Toe Of Frog – Witches Hex Trump
"Hocus Pocus! Abracadabra! I cast a spell on you.”
At least that’s what a bunch of witches are doing to Donald Trump. Yes, you read that right, witches are casting spells on Donald Trump.
Apparently, these spellcasters around the world put down their broomsticks each month long enough to join together to cast "binding spells” on the President of the United States. Their goal is to prevent him from "doing harm”, at least what they consider harm. They think they are doing the world some great service and are very proud of their hexes. (Is this why Trump just cut a deal with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to legalize DREAMERs and wants to eliminate the debt ceiling? Explains so much!)
Harry Potter, Ron, and Hermione couldn’t be reached for comment, and Bette Midler and Alyssa Milano were too busy being has-beens to discuss this issue. So last night, Tucker Carlson interviewed one of these witches on his Fox News program. Amanda Yates Garcia calls herself the Oracle of Los Angeles and said in the interview,
Read the rest!
Dana mathewson's 2c
I read an article a week or so ago on one of the e-mail "things" that comes to me, about a person who says she's worked as a witch for years but "doesn't do it anymore." One takes that to mean she's not trying to hex the president.
My take on this is that there are (one hopes) enough people praying for Mr. Trump that all the witches in the country AND the world are powerless against him. One needs to keep in mind that Satan is not the equal of God, after all. He has no power other than what we -- mortals -- give him, because whatever he had was taken from him when the crucified Christ descended into Hell and took it during the Harrowing of Hell. The only ones who give Satan any power are today's Leftists. The writer of one of the gospels (I can't cite it exactly, but I'll bet Fay can) says "Resist the devil and he will flee from you."
So all those Jack and the author mention (and Rosie O'Donnell and Hillary into the bargain), can huff and puff but I doubt the house will come down. As is usual with liberals, there are way too many of them with too much time on their hands, and they think they're the only ones around, but give 'em enough chardonnay and they'll quiet down eventually.
Them's my two cents.
THIS FROM TIM:
Liberalism is magical thinking, and it is no surprise that modern witches are all lefties. Liberals believe they can believe something into existence, be it a man into a woman or money out of thin air (as in deficit spencing) or energy out of wind or sunlight (rather than out of concrete things like oil or natural gas). They believe that society is perfectable if only the right people are in charge. They think Socialism - a system that has universally failed when tried - is a viable economic policy. They believe wars are caused by weapons and if we simply get rid of those there will be no more wars. Ditto crime. Self-esteem is one of their penultimate goals - what can be looked on as more of a kind of self-worship i.e. the godhead. They think a miniscule amount of hot air will destroy the entire world. They still think Hillary clinton can be President.
In short, they indulge in witchcraft that is little different than the type indulged in by Wiccans or other purveyors of the magical arts. They simply eschew the eye of newt and whatnot in favor of a more scholarly sounding paradigm. Instead of chanting in some ancient magical language to make things happen they chant in post-modern English using buzzwords like "microaggression" or "white privilege" or "marrige equality", words they have devised to push their particular magical narrative. The chant may change but the goal remains the same - to fundametally alter reality by disbelieving in the Truth.
So witches cast spells on Donald Trump. How is that different from the nightly news, which casts the evil eye on the President every day? The witches use binding spells while the media uses "Russian collusion" stories and whatnot. In the end the goals and methods are the same. Liberals just updated the arcane language and rid themselves of the occultic trappings.
"But these two things will come on you suddenly in one day: Loss of children and widowhood. They will come on you in full measure In spite of your many sorceries, In spite of the great power of your spells.
…20The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands. They did not stop worshiping demons and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone, and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk. 21Furthermore, they did not repent of their murder, sorcery, sexual immorality, and theft.
The article is http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/21/mel-brooks-calls-political-correctness-the-death-of-comedy]/here:
You know Dana, Saul Alinsky has as one of his Rules for Radicals a polemic that ridicule is Man's most potent weapon. You must wield it against your opponents and keep them from wielding it against you. That they have created this monster called political correctness shows how much the Left has triumphed in their quest for power; they are now "the Man" and they seek to keep others from damaging them with ridicule. Comedians like Mel Brooks have always wielded ridicule in a non-directed way, and by that I mean as social critique but not exactly directed at political enemies, unlike the Left which "picks the target, freezes it, personalizes it, and polarizes it." Blazing Saddles was a masterpiece of ridicule aimed at racism without attacking any individual. Brooks wanted to attack a bad idea, and to do that through humor.
Of course the modern liberal thinking is nothing but a series of terrible ideas ripe for ridicule, and our progressive friends know that. Their whole house of cards is predicated on silence by critics; should everyone suddenly declare "the Emperor has no clothes" their Cuckoo's Nest empire will fall. So they must enforce silence in any way they can manage.
As an example, did you see where exercise guru Richard Simmons lost a lawsuit against the National Enquirer? He was ordered to pay over a million dollars in legal fees to the Enquirere, who made up a story about Simmons claiming he was a post-op transsexual (sans joystick). While the court did not dispute the untruthfulness, they said it did not defame Simmons because being transsexual is no longer any sort of slur or oddity, and Simmons should be proud to be given honorary membership in the tranny club (my words but essentially their sentiments.) In short, they used political correctness to silence critics of this insane campaign to normalize cross dressing.
I remember when that was rich fodder for comedians. Monty Python's Flying Circus did The Lumberjack Song, for example, back in the '70's. In fact, Monty Python was chock full of crossdressing humor, and everyone understood at that time that it was a psychological disorder. Rulings such as the one from the judge in this Simmons case are intended to stifle free speech and embolden fake news and little more. This idiot simply decided that "dude looks like a lady" is perfectly normal and we are all going to pretend that is so at the risk of financial ruin. Liberals will PUNISH the apostate!
No wonder humor in these times is nothing but an endless string of crass and filthy commentary; there is nothing else anyone is allowed to do. Good comedy relies on an element of truth, and when you reject any and all truths you have nothing left to laugh at.
We went almost 12 years with no category 3-5 hurricanes hitting the United States – and climate alarmists were predictably silent. Then the lull predictably ended, and we got two big storms within weeks. (Unusual, but certainly not unprecedented.) The alarmists have been predictably vocal ever since, blaming Harvey and Irma on fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions.
I addressed this false linkage a couple weeks ago. But the even greater stridency over Irma makes it necessary to provide further educational material to counter the anti-fossil fuel fulminations. Here’s a little more science and history for thinking realists – and for alarmists who are prepared to replace ideology with a short course in climate and weather.
Irma illusions – and realities
If human emissions made Irma worse, did they also bring the 12-year lull in Cat 4-5 hurricanes?
Hurricanes Harvey and Irma brought out the best in us. Millions of Americans are giving money, toil and sweat to help victims rebuild. Unfortunately, the storms also highlighted some people’s baser instincts.
Some advanced ideological commitments to campaigns to "keep fossil fuels in the ground,” raise energy costs and reduce living standards. Others hyped Harvey’s record rainfalls, claiming carbon dioxide emissions made the Gulf of Mexico warmer and its air more moisture-laden. A few were just obnoxious.
These storms are a product of "this administration’s climate denial, racism and callousness,” 350.org activist Jenny Marienau fumed. "How many once-in-a-lifetime storms will it take, until everyone admits manmade climate change is real?!” Daily Show comedian Trevor Noah fulminated.
Perhaps these newly minted "experts” received mail-order degrees in climatology or meteorology – or recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. They should at least take a few minutes to review hurricane and climate history, and talk to real climatologists and meteorologists, before launching tirades.
My geology, ecology and other studies taught me that climate change has been "real” throughout history. I’ve learned to be humble, respectful and vigilant in the face of nature’s power; to recognize that climate shifts can range from beneficial or benign to harmful or unbelievably destructive; and to understand that the sun and other powerful natural forces totally dwarf whatever meager powers humans might muster to alter or control Earth’s climate and weather.
Harvey marked the end of a record 12-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes hitting the US mainland. The previous 8-year record was set 1860-1869. NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division counts ten Category 4-5 monsters 1920-1969 (50 years) hitting the USA, but only three 1970-2016 (46 years). This year has brought two more, and the hurricane season isn’t over yet.
If Harvey and Irma were caused or intensified by human greenhouse gas emissions, shouldn’t those gases be credited for the 12-year lull and half-century decline in Cat 4-5 landfalling storms? For Irma’s changed intensity and route as it reached Florida and headed north? Certainly not.
If fossil fuels caused Harvey’s rainfall, were previous deluges like Hurricane Easy (45 inches in Florida, 1950), Tropical Cyclone Amelia (48 inches in Texas, 1978) and Tropical Storm Claudette (a record 43 inches in 24 hours on Alvin, Texas, 1979) the result of lower fossil fuel use back then? Highly unlikely.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concludes that neither the frequency of North Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes, nor their energy level, has displayed any trend since 1950. Despite slightly warmer ocean waters in some regions, global Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) levels in recent years have been at their lowest levels since the late 1970s.
When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is in its cyclical positive phase, the tropics, west coast of North America and our Earth overall get warmer; cooling occurs during the PDO’s negative phase. The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) also cycles between warm and cool phases, affecting regional and planetary temperatures, as well as hurricane formation, strength and duration.
Any link between hurricanes and human carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas emissions is nebulous, tenuous and very poorly understood at this time. Asserted links to recent hurricanes are ideological illusions.
Hurricane Irma remained symmetrical and grew in size and intensity into the massive Category 5 hurricane seen in satellite photos, because it remained over warm water for a week as it crossed the Atlantic and Caribbean – and was not pulled apart by mid-altitude wind sheer – weather experts explained. Its encounter with Cuba’s coastal lands and mountains finally reduced its wind speeds and disrupted its symmetry.
Over Florida, strong north-to-south winds high in the atmosphere clipped the top off the hurricane. That further disturbed Irma’s shape and intensity, and steered the storm westward as it traveled north up the Citrus State. As is usually the case with storms moving north over Florida and parallel to its west coast, Irma’s front wall began to pull in both drier air and upwelling water. The bigger the storm the more it does this, WeatherBELL Analytics chief forecaster Joe Bastardi explained.
All these factor combined to slow whirling winds in the storm’s eyewall still more. It began wobbling on its axis, and Irma gradually became a disorganized tropical storm after it pounded Fort Meyers.
As to Hurricane Harvey, consulting meteorologist Joe D’Aleo notes that "hurricanes entering Texas are almost always very wet and often stall or meander.” This year, a large cool trough trapped Harvey and kept it from moving inland, enabling the Gulf of Mexico to feed it trillions of gallons of water for days, said Bastardi. It was "an unusual confluence of events,” said Weather Channel founder John Coleman, "but it was certainly not unprecedented.”
If there was a "human factor” in Harvey and Irma, climate alarmists need to explain exactly where it was, how big it was and what role it played. They must present hard evidence to show that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions played a significant role amid, and compared to, the hundreds of natural forces involved in these storms. Their loud rhetoric only highlights their failure and inability to do so.
In fact, the Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico are warm enough every summer to produce major hurricanes, says climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer. But you also need other conditions, whose origins and mechanisms are still unknown: pre-existing cyclonic circulation off the African coast, upper atmospheric calm, sea surface temperatures that change on a cyclical basis in various regions, to name just a few.
The combination of all these factors – plus weather fronts and land masses along the way – determines whether a hurricane arises, how strong it gets, how long it lasts, and what track it follows.
Damage from hurricanes has certainly increased over the years. But that is because far more people now live and work in far more expensive communities along America’s Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Since 1920, Greater Houston has grown from 138,000 people to 5.7 million; Miami from 43,000 to 6.1 million; Tampa from 50,000 to 3 million.
Meanwhile, death tolls have declined – at least in countries where fossil fuels, highways and modern technologies enable us to construct stronger buildings, track storms, warn, evacuate and rescue people, and bring in water, food, clothing, and materials to rebuild power lines and buildings in stricken areas.
Over 6,000 people perished in the 1900 Category 4 Galveston Hurricane, 2,500 in the 1928 Okeechobee, Florida Category 4 hurricane and storm surge. More than 1,800 died in Katrina (Category 3), due largely to corrupt and incompetent local and state governments.
Thanks to better preparation, warning and evacuation, overall tragic deaths were kept to 82 from Harvey and 93 from Irma. Incredibly, despite the vicious 185-mph winds that reduced most of Anguilla and Barbuda to rubble, Irma killed only one person on those Caribbean islands.
Even in recent years, cyclones and hurricanes have brought far more death and destruction to poor nations where modern energy and technology are still limited or nonexistent: 400,000 dead in Bangladesh in 1970, 138,000 in Myanmar in 2008, and 19,000 from Hurricane Mitch in Central America in 1998.
It may be fashionable to focus on alleged "social costs of carbon” and asserted fossil fuel contributions to extreme weather events. But it is essential that we never forget the enormous benefits these fuels bring.
Our Earth is a complex, wondrous, resilient planet. But it can unleash incredible fury. Wealthy, technologically advanced nations fueled by oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power are far better able to avoid, survive and recover from those disasters. We must count our blessings, but always be prepared.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.
September 21, 2017
Amazing! I didn't have any knowledge of this, though I am familiar with the shooting down of KAL Flight 007 (had a book about it, loaned it to a guy I should have known would never read it or return it).
Although he died back in May of this year, Stanislav Petrov's death has only recently been reported by mainstream media in the West. That's a sad state of affairs since Petrov literally saved the world one day when a nuclear war was closer than ever.
Wikipedia explains what happened:26 September 1983, just three weeks after the Soviet military had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to five more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm.
In order to understand how big of a deal that call was, you've got to imagine what it was like in the 1980s. Ronald Reagan was U.S. president. Tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States were rising -- fast. This was not only due to Reagan's persistent fiery (and correct!) attitude towards the Soviets but also because the Soviet Union was suffering. A lot. They couldn't win the war in Afghanistan and their economy was on the brink of collapse.
At that moment, with tensions on the rise, with a weakening Soviet Union and a U.S. president who seemed hell-bent on bringing the fight to Moscow, Petrov was the only one with common sense enough to understand that the U.S. wouldn't suddenly launch a nuclear war, even though his computers said that's exactly what had just happened.
Had Petrov been wrong, his decision would've led to the destruction of the Soviet Union. It would've literally been wiped off the map... and there wouldn't have been a second chance to strike back at the American enemy.
What made Petrov different from his fellow officers was his civilian training. The system told him that the Americans had fired at least 5 missiles at the Soviet Union but he just didn't believe it. After all, he argued, if the Americans went to war, they'd go all-out. Five missiles wouldn't cut it. Besides, he thought, the alarm system was brand new and therefore not as reliable as it should've been.
That's why he made the decision not to inform his superiors about the alarm. He let it happen. Shortly after, of course, he was proven right: there was no attack coming, the system had failed.
There is little doubt that if any other officer was on duty at that moment, the world would've had a nuclear war on its hands right then and there. They would've informed their superiors that the Americans launched missiles at the Soviet Union, and the Soviet leadership would've instantly and immediately returned fire. If that had happened the U.S. would've had to answer in kind, of course, resulting in utter destruction and tens of millions of deaths on both sides.
It didn't happen very often during the Cold War -- if at all -- but Petrov was a Soviet officer who saved countless lives. And he did so because he broke with the hierarchy and structure of the Soviet system, deciding that he as an individual knew better than the collectivist system created by his "superiors."
If that doesn't sum up the failure of communism in one paragraph, I don't know what does.
Timothy, Jack and I have all discussed, on occasion, the danger of an EMP attack on this country, by North Korea or anyone else. We all have the impression that our government is not paying enough attention to the issue, though in fact that may not be the case -- they have just not said anything about it.
Austin Bay, a respected military expert, writes the following in PJMedia:
There's a lot more here. But one thing bothers me, that Bay does not address. An EMP attack may well cripple our ability to respond. It's true that we have guided-missile submarines ("boomers") circling the globe at all times, and very likely there will be one or two close to North Korea; but an EMP would surely make it impossible for government and military officials to communicate with them, to give the attack orders.
If North Korea detonated a nuclear device 200 kilometers above the Earth in order to create an electromagnetic pulse, would the U.S. counterstrike North Korea with conventional and perhaps nuclear weapons?
The answer had better be "hell yes."
Everyone agrees: an EMP attack over or near U.S., Japanese, or South Korean territory is a physical attack that would wreak havoc with communications, the power grid, and civilian physical infrastructure.
This quip makes the point with bumper sticker clarity: "EMP kills EMS."
American emergency medical systems, or EMS, depend on mobile communications to route EMS ambulances to accident sites and citizens in physical distress. An EMP attack would knock out a seizure victim's cell phone, the county EMS communication center, and the communications on the EMS ambulance. It would likely fry all of the electronics on the vehicle. If the ambulance has an electronic microchip key and a fancy-superkeen electronic ignition button, it might not even start.
EMS also relies on GPS, or Global Positioning Satellite location system. An electromagnetic pulse would damage GPS receivers. An EMP's fritzing electrons in space could impede satellite to ground signals in the area for days, even though GPS satellites orbit 22,500 miles above the Earth.
An EMP attack could damage the SCADA systems monitoring and controlling critical infrastructure such as dams, factories, water and sanitation systems, oil refineries, and natural gas pipelines.
In short, an EMP attack destroys the electronic neurons and sinews of modern society.
The Vatican has now put us into the basket of deplorables. According to Breitbart:
"Speaking in New York at the 10th Conference for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, Archbishop Paul R. Gallagher, the Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States, noted that the rising tensions over North Korea’s growing nuclear program "are of special urgency,” while sharply criticizing President Trump’s handling of the situation.
"The international community must respond by seeking to revive negotiations,” Gallagher said. "The threat or use of military force have no place in countering proliferation, and the threat or use of nuclear weapons in countering nuclear proliferation are deplorable.”
The Archbishop went on to say that building up a strong military—one or Mr. Trump’s stated priorities—is counterproductive and hearkens back to a Cold War mentality.
"We must put behind us the nuclear threats, fear, military superiority, ideology, and unilateralism that drive proliferation and modernization efforts and are so reminiscent of the logic of the Cold War,” Gallagher said, in evident reference to the American President"
I guess we should all just be nice and go on a picnic together! Apparently Archbishop Gallagher missed it when North Korea first developed a bomb after intense negotiations and a serious agreement. Perhaps he missed it when they restarted their enrichment program despite a settlement in good faith. Maybe he was busy on the day North Korea conducted nuclear tests, or tested rockets that serve only one purpose - the delivery of weapons to attack other countries. I guess he failed to notice the missiles going over Japan.
The man and his boss canThernot be such fools.
They say the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact, and I would argue neither is Christianity. Jesus does not want us to lay ourselves bare before tyrants and butchers; if He did there would be no tyrants and butchers. Turning the other cheek is a polemic about personal behavior, not a guide to international relations. It has always been understood that there is such a thing as just war, and that sometimes a nation must go to war to protect itself. In this case America is threatening to go to war to protect other nations as well. That is why the State is given the power of the sword...
Pope Francis and his social justice buddies seem to think that Barney the Dinosaur is the real Messiah.
Meanwhile Il Papa is chumming it up with financiers of international terrorism. He is of the ilk that refused to fight Islam prior to Pope Urban II, you know, the ones who let two thirds of the civilized world fall to the rapist hands of the Islamic horde before anyone could bestir themselves to take a stand.
here is something I should comment on briefly; a peewee football team turned their backs and kneeled at the playing of the National anthem in a game in Belleville Illinois the other day. Warner Todd Houston has the scoop:
"The 8-year-old kids from the Cahokia Quarterback Club football team took a knee as the anthem played before their Sunday, September 17 game, according to Fox Insider.
"One of the kids asked me if I saw [people] protesting and rioting in St. Louis,” Coach Orlando Gooden told the local Fox affiliate. "I said yes. I said, ‘Do you know why they are doing it?'”
The coach added that one of his players replied saying, "Because black people are getting killed and nobody’s going to jail.”
At that point, the coach claimed it was a "good teaching moment” and agreed to let the kids protest the anthem at the game:"
A couple of points here; first, while the race of the coach is not mentioned, one can assume by his name - Orlando Gooden - that he is black. Does this matter? Maybe not, but maybe so. And his was a visiting team from Cahokia, which is 58.8% African American, according to the last census. Apparently Mr. Gooden has been inculcated with black grievance, whether he admits it or not.
And he is apparently willing to pass this along to innocent children. Had he been honest - and read the judge's ruling, which exhaustively explained why police officer Jason Stockley was innocent - he would have explained that the law was followed to the letter here and that, perhaps there was a miscarriage of justice in this case (there wasn't) but that our legal system is designed to let the guilty go free rather than punish the innocent and that this is a good thing, especially if you are falsely accused. This WAS a teachable moment, a moment to explain why rioting is a bad thing and why we should respect the law, but Gooden would rather stoke anger and turn this young children into anti-social thugs.
"What I teach my kids is love, integrity, honesty, fairness, respect and boundaries,” the coach claimed.
Since the protest, Coach Gooden did note that he has received some blowback from people critical of the protest.
However, Gooden is unrepentant. "As long as I have support of my parents and team, I’m perfectly fine, and I’m covered under the First Amendment to peacefully protest and assemble,” he said.
Hmmm. Where is the fairness here? None was extended to the cop in question. Neither was respect for others, as we are all Americans and to turn your back and kneel during the National Anthem is a gross disrespect, an "f%$$@ YOU!" to the rest of us. It should also be pointed out that he is not exercising his freedom of speech so much as making the young children on his team exercise his chosen viewpoint.
Perhaps the primary purpose for peewee football or any other athletic endeavor for 8 year olds is to teach them respect and self control and good behavior. It is a socializing exercise. Gooden's job is to teach these kids to respect their country and their fellow men and to be good citizens. Football is secondary in this. Increasingly the Left is politicizing everything, turning the institutions that are designed to make good citizens and a peacable, functioning society to their radical advantage. This is so vile because this man used his authority to essentially brainwash a bunch of little kids into hating their country. What benefit is there to the children? None whatsoever, but Mr. Gooden can feel like a big man.
By the way, it should be pointed out that the man who tried to assassinate the Republicans in Congress came from Belleville, so was not far removed from Mr. Gooden. These eastern suburbs of St. Louis are radical Democratic strongholds, and one must wonder about what they are teaching over there. It's clearly not civics, or history, or mutual respect.
The league should expel Mr. Gooden.
Down in Alabama a nasty feud is underway between the forces of cornpone Washington insider politics and a man of principle. Luther Strange aka Sen. Strangelove has the full backing of the D.C. Establishment and perhaps more disturbingly President Trump while his opponent - former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore - finds allies among the Tea Party and conservative groups. Juge Moore has shown himself to be unmovable in his beliefs, being twice kicked out of his position as Chief Justice for refusing to take down the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refusing to obey the SCOTUS imperial directive on gay faux marriage. Moore is the kind of guy we on the right have been seeking; a man of principle. Strangelove is the pollar opposite, a swmap creature who sells himself, sort of like a zombie bayou hooker.
If America is ever going to be saved it will be by outsiders and men of principle, like Judge Moore, not by the Luther Strange types. And America is in immediate and desperate need of salvation; contrary to what Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP Establishment thinks, this situation cannot continue for much longer. This is not matter of political winds but rather a cat five hurricane which has left America facing ruin. The rioting across the nation, the murder of police, the national debt, all may seem disconnected but they are not, and they will continue to get worse as long as it remains business as usual in Washington. These are not passing fads, but rather long term trends that had been established by bad policy over decades, policy the insiders simply do not want to end because they ultimately mean money and power for the insiders and for their plutocratic friends. Floods of immigrants are not wanted by the average joe, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants more and more, bot caring about the average joe but about bringing in cheap labor and perhaps watering down the effective power of dissatisfied Americans.
There comes a point in the life of every great nation when it is put up or shut up. Sometimes there is a renaissance and the nation renews itself, but often these very problems that stalk America today wind up destroying these earlier nations, and they will do so to the U.S. as well. We are no different from anyone else; we just had a better political and cultural setup. But we've thrown that away in favor of the very things that have destroyed numerous nations in history, and we will not avoid their fate.
We cannot afford a Luther Strange.
Below is an article from Americans for Limited Government that makes the case for Moore and against Strange:
By Peter Hong
You can tell a person by the company he keeps, especially in politics. You can tell more about where a politician stands or is going to stand by those with whom he surrounds himself than by the words that come out of his mouth.
Nowhere is that clearer than in the Alabama Senate GOP runoff scheduled for September 26th. At first glance, little seems to separate appointed Senator Luther Strange and former State Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore: two older, white, Republican political figures who basically agree on most issues.
But as sides are being drawn, the dividing lines between the two are bold and stark.
First, consider Strange, the former Alabama Attorney General who was appointed by disgraced, then- Governor Robert Bentley to the seat left vacant by current U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Strange counts among his supporters: Senate Majority Leader McConnell; the National Republican Senatorial Committee; most members of the Senate GOP Conference, including fellow Alabama Senator Richard Shelby; and a bevy of DC and Alabama lobbyists. Bankrolling the multi-million dollar Strange effort are McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Rifle Association.
On the other hand, Roy Moore, who was twice removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to take down a replica of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, includes among his supporters: many members of the House Freedom Caucus, including his former opponent Rep. Mo Brooks; Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham; former Governors Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin; Breitbart News’ Steve Bannon; Ann Coulter; and the Senate Conservatives Fund.
In other words, it’s pretty much a GOP family feud pitting the candidate of the GOP Establishment (Strange) against the candidate of the "rest of us” caucus (Moore). The race pretty much tracks the current front lines in the internecine battle for control of the Republican Party.
There is one notable exception. President Trump is supporting Strange, a peculiar decision, given that most of the energy behind his anti-establishment, take no prisoners campaign is behind Moore. Even Trump-aligned super PACs are split on the race: America First Action is running a digital ad campaign for Strange while Great America Alliance is hosting Sarah Palin and Sebastian Gorka on behalf of Moore.
The President himself is appearing at a pro-Strange rally in Alabama on Friday, to be followed on Monday by Vice President Pence. After Trump’s endorsement before the August 15th primary helped Strange squeak past Brooks to make it into the runoff with Moore, the President’s Twitter account went quiet on the Alabama race. This radio silence led many to wonder if Trump had abandoned Strange after he fell well behind Moore in the polls. The situation was further complicated when Bannon left his post as White House chief strategist and declared war on Strange and other incumbent Republicans in Congress.
Despite a tremendous financial advantage, both in actual campaign dollars and the multi-million dollar effort by McConnell-aligned PACs on Strange’s behalf, "Big Luther” finds himself swimming upstream. After finishing nearly 10 points behind Moore in the primary, Strange has never been ahead or tied in the polls, even the push polls released by his allies.
Perhaps realizing that he could not be seen as a puppet of the unpopular McConnell and win, Strange announced that he was switching his position supporting the use of the filibuster. While his newly found opposition officially sides him with President Trump and against McConnell, the move may seem a bit disingenuous, given that in April, Strange signed a bipartisan letter supporting the dilatory tactic. If Strange is willing in his first few months in office to switch positions so blatantly for political gain, what – Alabama voters may wonder – would prevent him, once elected, from switching back? Or from flip-flopping on other issues?
Aside from his ties to McConnell and the dreaded Establishment, Strange has his own personal areas of vulnerability, such as being the subject of a disturbing number of ethics charges. Plaguing the former attorney general is the deep impression in Alabama that his very appointment to the Senate was tainted by the criminal activities of ex-Governor Bentley. Republican voters in Alabama who want to put this sordid tale of sex and corruption behind them may not see Strange and the cloud of scandal enveloping him as the most prudent choice.
The largest obstacle facing Strange may be something he can't-do anything about: that Roy Moore, while not the Trump-endorsed candidate, may be the most "Trumpian” choice in the race.
Like Trump in 2016, Moore is not only the anti-Establishment candidate; he actually frightens the Establishment. Based on his record on the Alabama Supreme Court of refusing to back down on principle, a Senator Moore could very well make even Tea Party favorites Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul look pretty Washington by comparison. For Alabama Republicans wanting to poke the Establishment in the eye, a vote for Roy Moore would be like a gouging.
Also, like Trump, Roy Moore may be impervious to the millions of dollars of negative advertising being run against him by the Establishment. In Alabama, Roy Moore is a known quantity – and no amount of money is likely to move the needle in any significant way. If you’re a Republican in Alabama, you may think Roy Moore is nuts, but he’s your nut. And you might just resent the millions of dollars being spent by the Washington Establishment to persuade you otherwise. You might also wonder why this money is being spent to defame a Republican in Alabama, as opposed to going after any number of vulnerable Senate Democrats across the country.
It may be that this Trump-like appeal is exactly what gets Trump supporters in Alabama (and there are a lot of them) fired up for Moore, in spite of the Trump endorsement. And if Roy Moore becomes Senator Moore next Tuesday, he won’t owe a thing to anyone inside the Beltway – including Trump and McConnell.
Take cover Washington – the rising crimson tide of Hurricane Roy may come crashing down on a swamp near you!
Peter Hong is a contributing editor for Americans for Limited Government
September 20, 2017
There will be a rally featuring Steve Bannon in St. Louis.
Steve Bannon to Headline "Put Americans First Rally” Sunday Sept. 24 in St. Louis, Missouri
Breitbart.com chairman and former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon will headline the "Put Americans First Rally” Sunday September 24, 2017 in St. Louis, Missouri.
The "Put Americans First Rally” will start at 3 PM at the Marriott St. Louis Airport
The mother of a man who police said attempted to rob a Starbucks in California, but was thwarted by a Good Samaritan, reportedly said her son plans to sue because the hero used "excessive force."
The video of the July robbery went viral. Police released the footage showing Cregg Jerri, 58, struggling with a would-be robber in a Transformers mask who tried to stage a hold-up with a knife and toy gun at a Starbucks in Fresno.
Jerri, at one point, approaches the robber from behind and bashes him over the head with a chair. Eventually the two hit the ground and grapple. Police said Jerri was stabbed in the neck as he tried to grab the knife.
The Fresno police chief reportedly called the report of the lawsuit "ludicrous.”
September 19, 2017
Something quite different from what I usually send around. Will get the day started with something other than politics.
From "Friend Eddie," including his comment.
"My dad was 30 years old when Earp died."
From the interview:
"The most important lesson I learned from those proficient gunfighters was the winner of a gunplay usually was the man who took his time. The second was that, if I hoped to live long on the frontier, I would shun flashy trick-shooting—grandstand play—as I would poison."I was a fair hand with pistol, rifle, or shotgun, but I learned more about gunfighting from Tom Speer’s cronies during the summer of ’71 than I had dreamed was in the book. Those old-timers took their gunplay seriously, which was natural under the conditions in which they lived. Shooting, to them, was considerably more than aiming at a mark and pulling a trigger. Models of weapons, methods of wearing them, means of getting them into action and operating them, all to the one end of combining high speed with absolute accuracy, contributed to the frontiersman’s shooting skill. The sought-after degree of proficiency was that which could turn to most effective account the split-second between life and death. Hours upon hours of practice, and wide experience in actualities supported their arguments over style.
When I say that I learned to take my time in a gunfight, I do not wish to be misunderstood, for the time to be taken was only that split fraction of a second that means the difference between deadly accuracy with a sixgun and a miss. It is hard to make this clear to a man who has never been in a gunfight. Perhaps I can best describe such time taking as going into action with the greatest speed of which a man’s muscles are capable, but mentally unflustered by an urge to hurry or the need for complicated nervous and muscular actions which trick-shooting involves. Mentally deliberate, but muscularly faster than thought, is what I mean.
In all my life as a frontier police officer, I did not know a really proficient gunfighter who had anything but contempt for the gun-fanner, or the man who literally shot from the hip. In later years I read a great deal about this type of gunplay, supposedly employed by men noted for skill with a forty-five."
Read the whole thing.
VDH has a good piece on the limits of "diversity." Pertinent, I think, to the ]link=http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/hobby_lobby_a_black_protester_and_my_racist_shoulder_bag]woman's "cotton bawl.".
Diversity Can Spell Trouble
A word from Dana Mathewson
Most people, including blacks, have better things to do. Kind of makes you believe all this stuff is orchestrated, doesn't it?
I don't remember any protests back in the 60's when Harry Belafonte sang:
"Now, when those cotton balls get rotten,
You can't pick very much cotton
In them old cotton fields at home."
As nasty as Harry's become these days, he'd probably be out there protesting himself now.
Some background; some people need to go to jail .
The government wiretapped Paul Manafort.
From the article:
"According to the CNN reportthe wiretapping and surveillance of Manafort started sometime in 2014 and then was discontinued after nothing of criminal value or significance was gained. [NOTE: FISA warrants must be updated in 90 day increments; continued surveillance involving U.S. persons must be justified; if nothing exists the court orders the surveillance to cease the warrant is no longer valid.] However, according to the same leaked source reporting from CNN the wiretapping began again in 2016."
Read it all.
Well maybe Hillary isn't strong enough to throw a Molotov cocktail or club someone with a spiked baseball bat herself, but that doesn't mean the old bat can't participate indirectly in anarchy by financing thuggery.
Gateway Pundit reports:
In building investigations, Daily Caller first discovered that Hillary transferred a mass sum of money from her campaign over to Onward Together:
Clinton transferred $800,000 from her failed 2016 presidential campaign to Onward Together shortly before announcing the group’s launch in May, documents the campaign filed with the FEC reveal.
Now, today, it has been revealed by Offended America exactly where that money is going:
Daily Caller reached out to five different Antifa linked groups, and only one was willing to deny donations from Onward Together. Soros-linked group, Indivisible, denied receiving financial support from Clinton or Onward Together.
"Onward Together has not given any financial support to us,” Helen Kalla, an Indivisible spokesperson, wrote to Daily Caller.
Kalla added that Clinton’s group has "been amplifying and highlighting our work through their digital networks,” which she explained has consisted of "retweeting [Indivisible], and they’ve highlighted our work via their emails to their list too.”
END OF QUOTE
Hillary is trying to relive her college student days when she supported the Black Panthers. And just like in the old days, she has a self-serving rationalization for fomenting anti-government attacks. I predict there will come a time where Atty. Gen. Sessions - and Donald Trump realize that they cannot let her seditious acts go unpunished because she is becoming, once again, a growing threat to Law and Order.
A black (her race is a significant factor here) woman has decided to accuse Hobby Lobby of racism for selling a decorative artificial cotton stalk. To reply to one Tweet's question, no this story is not from The Onion. But it may well be from the anti-religious Left.
The NY Post reports:
A Texas woman has been getting ridiculed online for being "too sensitive” after she blasted the arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby for selling faux raw cotton stalks — which she found offensive.
"This decor is WRONG on SO many levels,” Daniell Rider posted on Facebook this past Thursday, along with a photo of the phony textile plants.
"There is nothing decorative about raw cotton…A commodity which was gained at the expense of African-American slaves,” she said. "A little sensitivity goes a long way. PLEASE REMOVE THIS ‘decor.'”
Rider, who is black, appeared to take the picture of the cotton herself after spotting it at a Hobby Lobby in Killeen, TX.
END OF QUOTE
One has to question the sanity and sincerity of this woman who "just so happened" to pick Hobby Lobby for her accusations. As many readers know, Hobby Lobby won a Supreme Court case which decided the closed corporation had no legal obligation to provide birth control coverage to their employees. The article also mentions that a college president at Libscomb University felt compelled to send an apology letter to black students who visited his home and saw decorative cotton plants.
Now about two years ago, I had two pairs of jeans that had seen better days. Looking in the newspaper one day, I saw that an idealistic group of people, in connection with the Cotton Council, were collecting old cotton clothing items such as jeans in New York's upscale Bloomingdale department store. The cotton items collected would be recycled into home insulation for poor people, making winter less brutal for many low income families. In appreciation for those that donated cotton items, the Cotton Council would hand out cotton shoulder bags (essential student or small mail carrier bags) to each donator. After going to Bloomingdale's, I received my bag complete with Cotton Boll logo on it - how "racist." I've carried this very bag in public in New York City and not one black person (wearing a cotton shirt or blouse) has come up to me saying I was glorifying oppression of blacks. Although that might change. As is, I've recently switched to a fancier half-backpack shoulder bag. But one wonders why there weren't black people standing outside Bloomingdale's with picket signs. I believe the reason for that is most black people have a life filled with much better things to do than get freaked out over a decorative cotton boll symbol, one seen on television commercials for decades along with a nice song praising cotton as "The fabric of our lives."
So will black people now start boycotting blue jeans? Or insisting white people who wear cotton clothes such as blue jeans are racist? Only the hard leftist blacks or the insane. But I repeat myself.
34 queries taking 0.0102 seconds, 99 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.