Philosophy 101, question #3

If you are not offended by both of these:

Why?

The climate change consensus

Watch this video...

Also what the video does not discuss is that NO ONE denies that the climate is changing. That is what weather does, it changes from day to day. Where the various controversies reside are:

1. How much actual influence has man had on the global weather compared to what nature can do on its own (compare say the most recent Mt. St. Helen eruption of air-born particulates and CO2 discharges with that estimated to be caused by man).
2. Who is to say what the world's "ideal" weather is? Is it what the weather was like 5000 years ago or tomorrow? Who gets to decide which is best and best for whom?
3. If environmentalists were serious about reducing fossil fuel use (to save the planet) they would be promoting more nuclear power, but they are not. If we reduce our usage of fossil fuels, that lost energy must be made up somehow. Wind, solar, etc. will not close that energy gap. Nuclear power is the only way (today) to replace the energy lost by reducing/eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Any environmentalist that is not for nuclear power is not serious.
4. If "man made climate change" is really as dire as Al Gore, DiCaprio, and and all of these other "celebrity" environmentalists say it is, why are they NOT doing their part to help? Why are they constantly jet-setting all around the globe instead of appearing by Skype? If they were serious about wanting to save the planet and if things were really so dire, they would never fly by plane again. Al Gore would sell his house that consumes over $30K a year in energy and live more like George Bush.

They don't do that though, in part because they are "better" (i.e. morally superior because they CARE) than you and I. Due to their fight for the planet, they have earned the right (in their minds at least) to have a carbon foot print that is larger than some small towns. As with most socialists and/or fascists, they always think that they will wind up in charge and as George Orwell famously wrote, "Some animals are more equal than other animals".

Two in the heart and one in the head...

the rule of law is officially pronounced dead...

The Supreme Court fatally wounded the "rule of law" in 2012 by claiming a mandate was really a tax, even after the Government swore that it was not.

In a Surprise Ruling, Chief Justice Sides With Liberals to Uphold Insurance Mandate

While on life support, President Three-putt (Obama) continued to abuse the body of the law, while it was in intensive care by routinely exceeding his official powers (cause he has a phone and a pen). He was a teacher of Constitutional law after all, so clearly he knows what the President can and can not do (not that he cared at all - immigration non-enforcement, fast n furious, IRS attacking Tea Party groups, green energy pay-offs, interfering in local criminal matters, etc.) while Congress stood by and watched the abuse.

This week, the "Rule of Law" has now succumb due to a fatal head-shot delivered by the FBI in their finding that though "Crooked" Hillary did "a lot of bad things", it would not recommend indicting her.

After describing clear evidence of extensive mishandling of classified national security information, FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI will not recommend indicting former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Comey acknowledged Clinton sent and received Top Secret emails that “any reasonable person” understands not to discuss on an unclassified system.

Comey also acknowledged her email system was housed on unclassified personal servers that lacked full time security systems. Indeed, nations and groups hostile to the U.S. could have hacked the system. Comey acknowledged “hostile actors” hacked individuals corresponding with Clinton on her unauthorized system. She also used her unsecured personal system outside of the U.S.—in places where sophisticated adversaries could hack her communications.

So, the Government has spent the last 8 years showing all of us that the rule of law means nothing, if you are in power. That those of the "favored" class are exempt from those antiquated words written on a 200 year old piece of paper. OK. Fine. You want to roll that way? Understood.

I wonder what the Government will do when those it governs no longer pay any attention to it or to its rules and laws? When the Government shows time and again that words don't mean what they mean, that "at this point, what difference does it make?". Ye shall reap as ye shall sow.

Update:



Remember, he said all that she did wrong and that there was to be no case BUT someone ELSE doing the same thing should not expect the same treatment...

Logic bomb #1

The fact is that more rapes have been prevented / stopped by guns than by all of the "slut walks" ever held. Why don't more feminists support individual gun rights?

Feminists, instead of attending the next scheduled slut walk, why not go to the range, learn how to shoot, and arm yourselves?

Voter fraud example #22

An investigation by CBSLA2 and KCAL9 found that hundreds of deceased persons are still on voter registration rolls in the area, and that many of these names have been voting for years in Los Angeles.

Julita Abutin, died in 2006 but voted in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014.

For example, John Cenkner died in 2003, according to Social Security Administration records, yet he voted in the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections. His daughter told the station that she was “astounded” and couldn’t “understand how anybody” could get away with this.

But, but, but that JUST CAN'T BE cause the left / democrats keep telling us that there is NO voter fraud problem and that it is just those evil Republicans trying to disenfranchise minorities by wanting to require proper ID before allowing someone to vote.

Another voter, Julita Abutin, died in 2006 but voted in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014. According to CBS, the county confirmed they have “signed vote-by-mail envelopes” from Abutin since she passed away.

The mask is slipping and they don't even bother trying to hide their dishonesty any more. They know the media will help cover for them and [today at least] the DOJ is on their side.

Philosophy 101, question #2

If you consider this image provocative:



but not this one:

Why?

Clinton Facts (as provided by Donald Trump)

Read them here...

Splendiferous Joe Biden

According to the morning news, we should all be so fantastically grateful to the splendiferous [slow] Joe Biden! According to the teaser, we should most definitely, absolutely tune in tonight to learn of all the wondrous things [slow] Joe has done in the short time that "solving" cancer has been his life's calling! Since President Three-putt put Joe on the case, magnificent things have happened "all because of Joe"!

Who would that thought that not a thing of significance has been happening for the last 3 or 4 decades in the field of cancer research. It took [slow] Joe to be assigned to the case to "make things happen".

I just may need to tune in cause I did not know that Joe had a degree in biology or in medical research or cancer research or clinical research or experience running drug trials or worked in the medical chemical area or made strides in designer drugs. I mean he is just THE BEST EVER! Thank the Good Lord he was put on the case!

OK, that was somewhat fun. The reality of course is much simpler. [slow] Joe is following in the foot steps of President Three-putt and leading from FAR behind. There is no lack of attention, efforts, money, and great minds working on various aspects of cancer research. Much effort is spent on finding better treatments and on actual cures. The only thing Joe adds to this is "hot air".

Me thinks [hopes?] that Hillary! will need to drop out before the election and the Democrats plan to slide [slow and gropy] Joe in on the 11th hour hoping to throw Donald off of his messaging and game and allow the Democrats to continue their destruction of the country. This is just another case of the media helping their political friends and work to keep some Democrat in the news in a positive way. Goodness knows there are no end of Democrats in the news lately for negative reasons.

BREXIT passes

Well, it seems that the plebs had the audacity to go against the politicians, the media, the unions, and the foreign dignitaries and voted that they have had enough!

Enough of loosing their sovereignty. Enough of being flooded with immigrants that don't share their values, share their culture or share their desire to live in a free and open society. Enough of being told by others how to run their own affairs.

Good for them!

Now we get to see if the British government abides by the desires of the British people.

Does all of this sound somewhat familiar? I believe our country went through something like that a couple of hundred years ago. As a group, the residents of America decided that they had enough of being messed around with by a bunch of potentates that felt that they knew best for everyone and had a right to tell everyone what to do, how to do it, and how much they owed for the "honor" of being told how to live their lives. Those "Americans" decided to do something about it.

Sound relevant to now, here, in this country?

Seems we are once again awash in folks that believe they are our betters and have a "moral obligation" and right to tell us what to do, how to do it, and how much we owe them for the honor of being told how we may live our lives.

That is what has caused the rise of Trump. The Tea Party was the first wave and the establishment did their best to slap them down. The media tried to brand those groups as raciest, homophobic, and nutters. The force of OUR government was turned against us, the citizens that OWN the government. The IRS, EPA, DOJ, the courts, the legislature, the FBI all directed to "crush" these malcontents that had the audacity to say enough.

Now we have Trump. He is the second wave of a populous that is tired of being mishandled. Is he the "best" answer? Hell no but he is "an" answer. If he loses [and if I am honest, I think he will] and Hillary gets the power, it will be in no small part through her minions in the media and a large dose of voter fraud.

That will likely usher in the third wave. At that point, God help us all for "the people" will have been told and shown that the rule of law means nothing (we are already getting small daily lessons in that). That the Constitution no longer means anything. That the "establishment" with their back room deals and secret lists and payoffs are truly in charge.

At that point, what have "the people" got to lose that they have not already had taken away from them? Ponder that...

Our moronic representatives

OK, so let me see if I have this right. Some of the duly elected members of congress, elected to represent WE the people and to help uphold our rights, have decided to hold a sit-in. To throw a temper tantrum because other members of congress won't let them vote to further restrict the rights of Americans?

Really?

A friggen sit-in? What is this 1964? What are they 14 years old?

Let us not forget what this sit-in is about. It is about those that have been elected to protect our rights wanting to impost their desires on all Americans. What are those desires? They want to deny an American citizen their God given right to a firearm based on that individual being listed on a secret, government list. A list you would not know you were even on until you tried to take a flight or purchase a gun. A list you would not be told why you were on it, in fact they won't even acknowledge that you are even on this list that is preventing you from buying a gun. There is practically no way for you to get yourself off of this list as in part the government will not admit that you are on it. You broke no laws, you didn't do anything, you are just on this list. You are on this list because some bureaucratic somewhere thought you maybe, might be someone or friends with someone that might be suspicious. Or they checked the wrong box on a form. Or they mis-spelled some actual terrorist's name. Regardless, done, finished, over for you. No due process, no court hearings, nothing. Your ability to fly and your gun rights are just gone.

Do you want that? Here in America?

I don't. WE DON'T DO THAT HERE.

You want to do something? STOP LETTING THESE TERRORISTS ENTER THE COUNTRY! Why not start there? Don't let these vile Imams in. Don't let terrorist sympathizers in. Don't let someone running for President of the U.S.A. accept donations from countries and groups that promote terrorism!

Do all those things first and if we still have issues, we can talk BUT secret lists that strip citizens of their rights is NEVER OK.

This is also yet another reason why we should have a much weaker Federal Government. Such unserious people should not have so strong a say in normal citizen's lives. If an individual state wishes to elect these folks to state office, fine. I don't care. You generally get the government you deserve. But with these folks at the Federal level and with so much power, the rest of the country is forced to suffer for the idiocy of just a few states.

Oh and don't forget:

Unbelievable! Air Force manhandles vet

A USAF veteran who has for years delivered a stirring “flag-folding speech” at military and civic events was recently forcibly removed from a retirement ceremony.

Follow the link, read the text and watch the videos. Below is the text of the "forbidden" speech.

Flag-Folding Speech Delivered by Oscar Rodriguez Transcript

Our flag is known as the stars and stripes. The union consists of white stars on a blue field, symbolic of a new constellation. Each star represents one individual state and together they stand united indivisible. The stripes represent the original 13 colonies that declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. The one official, red, is symbolic for the blood of those who have given their lives to defend and protect our great nation from all of her enemies, both foreign and domestic. White represents purity, innocence, and hope. Blue is for vigilance, perseverance, and justice.

But in our hearts our flag stands for many things, evident in the Declaration of Independence where all men are created equal with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the right of the people to alter or abolish any form of government that becomes destructive.

Our flag stands for the Constitution of the United States of America. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech. It provides for security to all of her citizens, it also provides for a fair and swift trial. It abolished slavery and it gives each and every individual of age the right to participate in our voting process—to have a say in his or her’s future. Our flag is a beacon, recognized around the world to represent freedom during times of peace, or during times of war. This is what we live for. This is what we will fight for, and if necessary to touch the head of God in her defense, the charge that we accept as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines is a noble one for there is no heart stronger than that of a volunteer. Let us pray that God will reflect with admiration the willingness of one nation in her attempt to rid the world of tyranny, oppression, and misery. It is this one nation under God that we call, with honor, the United States of America.

God Bless our flag.
God bless our troops.
God bless America.

{video}
September 2013

Clinton and classified emails

Hillary has assured us time and time again that she did nothing wrong when she setup a private, insecure, off-the secure network, stand-alone email server for the use of her and her staff while she was Secretary of State.

She has assured us:

1. Other Secretary's of State have done this - lie
2. That this was not against State Department rules - lie
3. That the FBI is only doing a "security check / audit" and not a criminal investigation - lie
4. That at no time EVER did any classified or secret information pass through her server - LIE

In fact in yet ANOTHER example of how classified information traveled through her private, insecure server is this story run by Fox News (a good summary of the story can be found here).

The "funny" part of this is what the "Hillary fanboys" are saying about this additional revelation.

• It is being claimed that this email should have never been classified in the first place as it just has to do with scheduling an appointment.

• Sorry but that has NOTHING to do with it. The Secretary of State does not have unilateral power to declassify something that has been classified. She can not "just decide" that some information is "not that important".

• They are also saying that if you read the email, nothing in it looks like any kind of secret so again, no bit deal.

• Wrong AGAIN! Look that the email at the Fox link. Much of it at the bottom (the actual start of the email thread) has been redacted before being released by the Government. If that information was no big deal, it would not have been blanked out.

Hillary setup her own email server so as to allow her the freedom to conduct "business" (notice I did not say Government business) without the worry of FOIA requests or Government information audits. Also, don't forget, when asked for all of her private email server information, she had her lawyers review all of the email information and that which THEY deemed appropriate, was handed over to the Government IN PRINT. They did not even turn over the scrubbed information in electronic format. That would be yet another law she broke by allowing her lawyers (who had not been cleared to see secure Government information) access to that information for the purposes of "scrubbing" it.

Additionally:

The Times does note that “22 (of the emails) have now been classified by the State Department as “top secret,” 65 are classified as “secret”...

...on June 8, security experts told the Associated Press “At least 47 of the (Clinton) emails contain the notation “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the State Department report released in late May stands as one of recent history’s biggest victories for truth.

Clinton media strategists believe they can minimize the OIG report by doing two things: ignoring it or assuring us it doesn’t matter. In a week or so the strategists will begin employing the “it’s old news” shtick.

The OIG report totally discredits Clinton’s oft made claim that she didn’t do anything different from other former Secretaries of State.

Oh, but the OIG report demonstrates she did.

This is yet additional proof (if any were needed) that she should be kept as far from any Government power as is possible. How anyone can still try to defend her actions is deplorable and an indication of how sick the left in this country has become.

I am not saying that I approve of what Snowden did but he does highlight the hypocrisy of the left and those of the left that are in power. Also (in light of what has happened in Orlando)

P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?

Its all about ME!!!!!!!

This is absolutely ridiculous! At Mizzou, (yes the Mizzou that was in the news for the "Click" incident) during a "vigil" for the people murdered in the Orlando club, some BLM folks "take over" the event and wind up making it all about "THEM" cause it is always about THEM.

Disgusting. Watch:



Oh, and don't you love her "inclusive" opening comments about being nervous to be on the stage due to all of the "white people" in attendance. I suppose if I went on stage at a multi-ethnic gathering and planned to "hijack" the event for my own politics, I might be nervous too.

Common sense gun laws

You want some common sense gun laws? OK, here are my ideas for some common sense gun laws:

• Each business and/or legal entity (to include private citizens) are free to declare their "property" to be a "gun free zone" but doing so makes that "group" fully responsible for the protection of all persons on those premises to include being legally and financially libel for failure to protect.
• Any area marked as a "gun free zone" must indicate at least 60 days prior to the "gun free zone" restriction taking affect, the date that the gun free designation will take affect, in a manner consistent with how the "gun free zone" designation will be communicated.
• If an area is marked as a "gun free zone", that designation applies to all persons on the premises, to include the property owners.
• If an area is not clearly and obviously marked as a "gun free zone", it is not.
• No agent of the government is exempt from honoring any properly posted "gun free zone" designation unless they are in the act of responding to an immediate emergency. No exceptions.
• Any government agent or representative found to have violated a designated "gun free zone" will not be shielded from criminal and/or civil penalties.
• Any crime committed within a "gun free zone" that involves a gun will result in a "times 2" multiplier on any incarceration time. This additional time may not be served 'concurrently" with any other time, nor may it be reduced for any reason. It is to be assessed after all other judication has been completed.

• Any gun laws enacted in any state must be applied to all within the state, no exceptions. If no resident is allowed an AR-15 or extended magazines, that would also include the state government and the state guard. This also includes politicians and their security. If the law is worded in such a way as to enact a stepped level of increasing restrictions, the most restrictive level applies to the government (i.e. you can only have a 10 round magazine for target shooting and only a 5 round magazine for hunting - government employees can only have 5 round magazines).

• Any gun laws enacted by the federal government must be applied to all federal workers as well, with no exceptions (on par with the state law above). This includes the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc. The only exception to these "continental" restrictions is the Armed Forces of the United States, when they are operating outside of the United States and its territories. 

• Any government agency granting a waiver to any person, organization, or group for any existing gun law, invalidates that law for any/all persons affected/covered by that law.

• Mandatory minimums for violation of an existing gun law regardless of the persons "station" or position.

• Any existing CCW holder at the time that a more restrictive gun law is enacted, is exempt from that law.

• Any existing CCW holder can not have their CCW renewal denied for any reason except the following: deceased, committed to a mental institution (until such time as they are released), incarcerated for a crime (until such time as they are released), or they choose to voluntarily give up their CCW (they are permitted to change their mind and have it reinstated),
• If the CCW has "expired", the holder of the expired CCW is given an open ended period under which to renew. Renewal is for the purposes of having an "up to date" photo and any other relevant personal information and as such, the renewal fee must be reasonable and minimal. The "penalty" for an expired CCW is a fine of 2X the renewal fee.

• Any current or former active duty personal (that has not been dishonorably discharged) is permitted to apply for and be granted a CCW for nominal registration fees.

• Any government agent that wishes to (or is required to - due to the position) carry concealed must first obtain a CCW. The process followed must be "on par" with the process followed by citizens of that jurisdiction.

• Any valid CCW is valid in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all US territories.

• As it is a "health and safety" issue, firearms sound suppressors will no longer be governed by the BATF and will be legal to be made available where ever firearms are available.
• Whatever local / Federal laws govern the acquisition of a firearm will govern the acquisition of a suppressor.
• A crime committed with a suppressor will carry a "times 2" multiplier on any incarceration time. This additional time may not be served 'concurrently" with any other time, nor may it be reduced for any reason. It is to be assessed after all other judication has been completed.

• The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act artificial limitation on the civilian market availability of automatic weapons (only those registered on or before the law was signed) is rescinded.

I am sure that I could come up with more but I think these are a good first start. Lets enact these and THEN we can have further discussions on "common sense" gun laws. M'kay?

Philosophy 101, question #1

If you consider this image "provocative":



but not this one:



Why?

Subjective reality

So, let me see if I have this straight...

- Obama is more than willing to believe that a man is really a woman if that man says so

but

- Obama is not willing to believe that a man is a Muslim terrorist when he says that is what he is and has committed acts of terrorism?

A bright spot in the Orlando tragedy

Chick Fil A has made national news for it’s owners’ stance on gay marriage. Anytime they do something even remotely non-PC, their supposed slip up goes viral. Hash tags pop up all over the place.

So why is that what they have done in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shooting hasn’t received a single mention on the mainstream new outlets?

It’s probably because people like New York City Mayor, Bill DeBlasio might have to eat crow instead of chicken. DeBlasio has said that Chick Fil A spreads a message of hate.

Not so yesterday. In a shocking move, the Orlando location at University and Rouse Road fired up its grills on Sunday. The chain is notorious for not being open, ever, on the first day of the week. Employees cooked up hundreds of their famous chicken sandwiches. They brewed dozens of gallons of sweet tea.

Then, instead of making a single dime, they crated the product of their labor to the One Blood donation center. The food and drinks were handed out, free of charge, to all the people who had lined up to donate blood.

So far, the only mentions of the incident have been from individuals on Facebook. They have posted photos thanking the restaurant for their thoughtfulness and generosity.

So, [the oh so hated by the progressives] Chick Fil A does a simple, kind, generous thing because it was the right thing to do. I am sure that the owners and workers did not do this because they expected to be recognized and showered with accolades. Chick Fil A is NOT that kind of business or place. BUT it would have been nice if just one or two of the news organizations that have been crawling all over this story for the last three days had noticed and had taken a few moments out of their extensive theorizing and repeating of the same tid-bits of actual information to give credit where credit was due. Nah, that would not do as the meme has to march on regardless of the facts.

Clinton and Laureate Education

By now everyone is aware of Donald Trump and his legal issues with "Trump University" but have you heard of Laureate Education? Likely not.

Laureate is a for-profit online college that received an unusually large amount of money from the U.S. State Department. This happened while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and after her husband Bill was named "honorary chancellor," a position that paid him $16.5 million over five years. His role included giving speeches around the world and lending his name to attract prospective students.

During the time, when Bill was acting as honorary chancellor, the U.S. State Department, under Secretary Clinton, gave Laureate Education a whopping $55 million in grants.

Like Trump University, Laureate Education has also been sued for fraud. Its Walden University Online subsidiary allegedly "worked like a scam designed to bilk students of tens of thousands of dollars for degrees," according to liberal professor Jonathan Turley, who recently documented the organization's ties to the Clintons.

So apparently much of the media is doing the usual and trying to ignore any Clinton "scandal" news.

Orlando club terrorist attack

By now, you have likely heard about the terrorist attach in the night club in Orlando. Early information indicates that the terrorist that committed this ugly act (at least 50 people killed and many more injured) is a practitioner of the religion that shall not be named. That he targeted this club due to the clientele that frequent it. Apparently it is a LBGT club.

We have been warned that this "senseless act" should in NO way cause anyone to link this individual to the other practitioners of the "shall NOT be named" religion.

The President, the MSM, all the standard talking heads have been jumping all over themselves to implored us to "not read into" this single, stand-alone, isolated, brutal, senseless act of violence and terror, committed by one lone individual. That this is [yet another] isolated incident of violence that is completely unconnected to anything larger than this one individual. (ed: Despite the now known fact that his father [also a practitioner] is recently on the record supporting the Taliban. Nor the fact that just a couple of months ago an Imam was in the area preaching that to kill gays was an act of compassion.)

Can anyone say [with a straight face] that if this individual was [for example] a practicing fundamentalist Christian or had membership in [I don't know] a conservative group like the Tea Party, that this one, lone individual would not be held up as the standard bearer of all folks that belong to that religion or group? That this religion or group wouldn't in fact be vilified and condemned as a promoter of this hate and violence? But yet another horrific act of terror is committed by a practitioner of "the religion of peace" and we are yet again assured by the Government, CAIR, and all of the usual talking heads that this was but an isolated incident and please, PLEASE do not generalize to the wider group to which he was a member.

How many more lessons must we suffer through? Another 50 people have paid for this willful ignorance with their lives. How many more innocent lives must be lost in this country and around the world before the Government and the media start to speak the truth? That this "religion of peace" is anything but.

Update 2016/06/13: As expected, all of the usual suspects are calling for more "sensible gun laws". This despite the fact that not one of the existing gun laws or any of the proposed new "sensible" gun laws would have prevented this individual from getting his hands on guns. He worked for a security company for goodness sake! He had already been "interviewed" and "looked at" by the FBI and they found nothing actionable. Ignoring the elephant in the room, our betters instead lecture us on how we need to be "civil" and how we need to give up more of our liberties in order to "prevent" the next tragedy, all the while not addressing the root cause of this tragedy. Sorry but blaming guns for this is like blaming the car for a drunk driving accident.

Katie Couric, traitor to her profession

Updated 2016/06/09 - see bottom of post...

"Katie Couric, traitor to her profession" as a post title might seem a little harsh. You could be right. Her profession is "journalism" and in that regard she is generally on par with the rest of her associates. Like most journalists today, she views her job and mission to "tell a narrative" or to "tell a story". The predecessors of the modern journalist (reporters) generally saw their job and mission to "report the facts". There was bias but good reporters both did their best to not let their bias show and also tried to disclose any conflicts of interest that may have existed.

Those days are no more.

These days you have the likes of George Stephanopoulos appearing on various news programs, presented as an objective reporter of politics.

You have Katie Couric producing anti-2nd amendment propaganda and presenting it as "investigative journalism".

Her latest efforts place her firmly in the "60 Minutes", "Michel Moore", and "Dan Rather" school of journalism in that she will apparently do anything, up to falsely editing her video (i.e. make stuff up) to show us all her "truth". A truth that is [apparently] too important to be held back by mere facts. Does "fake but accurate" ring any bells? A far more coherent dissection of her latest efforts can be reviewed here. Please do.

As others have pointed out, now that she has been caught "red handed" having deceptively edited an interview "for dramatic effect" with the inadvertent side-affect of making those she was interviewing look like idiots (funny how it always seems to cut that way, the interviewer never comes out on the short end with these "mishaps"), she has issues the standard liberal non-apology with no actual effort or intent to correct her errors with the result that her errors will stand and her apology will be quickly forgotten.

I wonder if the folks from Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) can sue for misrepresentation and/or slander? Discovery would be delicious!

Update 2016/06/09: Appears that this is not the only or the first questionable incident in Couric's film endeavors. Apparently she has had these types of "editing mishaps" in other projects of her's.

The Pajama Boy White House in a Pajama Boy World

The Pajama Boy in Chief surrounded by his Pajama Boy minions...

What exactly has birthed the Pajama Boy aristocracy — our overclass of pretentious, inexperienced, and smug 30-something masters of the universe?

Who hires and promotes Pajama Boys? Why, of course, Barack Obama, the Pajama Boy in Chief.

For the Pajama Boys, rhetoric is everything, reality nothing. Fooling the lower middle classes is the stuff of sarcastic comedy...

Read the whole thing, it is worth it...

Hyperloop, hyper hype...

The current news is all abuzz about the [limited] demonstration of the new hyperloop project. On paper this sounds pretty interesting and as it is being done by (mostly?) private companies with their private money, more power to them.

I am sad to say that I don't think it will ever be deployed commercially. My reasons for my pessimism are:

• NIMBY - This technology is basically a rail system, updated. It takes land to lay out the tube that this runs in. Think laying down a new freeway stretch. I see endless battles for easements and right of ways. Others will fight the addition of this "eye sore" that will spoil the value of their McManions and "blight" the area.

• Environmentalists - I see endless court battles with the greenies over things like the habitat of the orange eyed, three toed, purple tree frog. Greenies do what greenies do. They oppose anything technology unless it is the "right" technology even if their "right" tech does more harm than good, cause it "feels good" to be on the side of Gaia!

• Regulations - What started out as a "great idea" will get crushed under an endless stream of safety tests and local, state, and federal regulations involving everything from what plastic is used to support the seat frame to what is used to insulate the "pods" from temperature/noise.

• Unions - Union contracts and union work rules will add additional large sums to the project costs. Combined with the NIMBY and environmental court costs, will dramatically increase the costs per foot of the project.

• Occupancy - In order to make a "transportation" company successful you need to 1) get people from point a to point b, 2) more conveniently than if they were to drive themselves, and 3) cheap enough to make the "hassle" of not driving themselves worth it. That means that this "Hyperloop" must move enough people from where ever they are to where ever they want to go quickly enough and cheaply enough to out weigh the value of driving themselves from point a to point b. Any two of these are easy but all three is difficult to do for enough people to allow the business to make money. Think Amtrak.

Add all of these up and I just don't see "Hyperloop" making it. For that matter, I don't see any new, disruptive mass transportation system making it either unless it removes the requirement of a long distance physical infrastructure to enable it (i.e. train tracks or tubes).

Think I am making too much out of the impediments? When was the last time a large international airport was constructed? All of my above reasons for the failure of "Hyperloop" are the cause of the failure of all other "really large" projects. Even when you have the power of the Government behind you these big projects take a long time. Look at how long any large government projects take (i.e. Chicago's Big Dig, etc.) with their corresponding cost over-runs.

It is for reasons like those listed above that we "can't have nice things".

More of the tolerant left [we keep hearing about], this time going after a Trump supporter

Here is some raw footage of a Trump supporter trying to get to a Trump rally.

This is the left's idea of a peaceful protest against those that have differing opinion. This is how they allow democracy to play out in society. This is what we can expect more and more of as they are rewarded for this type of behavior by not being punished for it. Notice how the police do not help the man until after he makes it all the way through the crowd. After having been pushed, hit, tripped, etc. Instead of pushing back the crowd and helping him, they make him climb over a hedge.

More of the tolerant left we keep hearing so much about.

Do they ever show any of this on the nightly news? I am not a "Trump" man but these sorts of actions could turn me into one...

UPDATE: More can be read/seen here.

ObamaCare update, more stuff you likely haven't heard

Did you know that in January of this year (2016) that Congress sent a bill to the President to end ObamaCare? The President vetoed it, of course BUT did you hear it even happened? Was it reported on the nightly news? Was it reported in the papers? Did any of the morning talk shows discuss it?

Read a recap of the "entire story" here.

This is just another example of people only being aware of what the media decides you should know about as well as how it should be framed when they do decide to tell you about it.

Remember, there was NO such thing as a "white Hispanic" until the Trayvon Martin incident in Florida. The term never existed. Early news reports (trying to be first with a scoop) mistakenly indicated that Zimmerman was white due [mostly] to his last name. Once it became known that he was in fact Hispanic, instead of correcting the record they switched to "white Hispanic". This was to both negate the need for them to release a retraction/correction as well as to protect their "narrative" of "another innocent African-American youth getting gunned down by a white man".

Same here with ObamaCare. It is a disaster. Co-ops are going broke left and right. Premiums are on the rise and the insurance companies are asking for double-digit increases. Program approval ratings have never been good and are not increasing but it is the "signature" legislation of the Obama administration and the [at the time] Democrat Congress. It MUST succeed at any cost and bad news can not be permitted. This includes Congress submitting bills to end the program as well as the President vetoing those bills. The media must maintain the illusion that Republicans have not even tried to keep their promise to end ObamaCare. This is in part to maintain the illusion that all is well and that support for it is growing but also to maintain the illusion that it is too late to do anything about it and no one is even trying, The opposition has given up and accepted this monstrosity. It also helps to depress Republican turn out as some will think why bother if they are just as bad and don't even try anymore to keep their promises. Well they did try. It failed but they did try. Remember that and remember where you didn't hear about it as it should have been big news and it was. It was just the wrong kind of news.

You are more likely to be raped in college than in prison, says government...

White House states that 8.5 percent of female inmates and 3.7 percent of male inmates experience sexual assault while in prison.

The White House also states that women have a 1 in 4 chance of being raped in college (rape culture and all).

This would mean that men are twice as likely and women nearly three times as likely to be raped on a college campus as they are in prison.

Based on this information:

a) Why would any parent send their children to college? Would this not be considered child abuse in any rational society?

b) Why are colleges still permitted to NOT involve police in every single allegation of rape? If this many rapes are taking place on our colleges, this is a massive crisis that should be addressed NOW by police.

The reality is no one actually believes these college rape stats. Everyone knows they are extremely overblown but they make it sound like there is a problem all the while the folks involved do their nod/nod/wink/wink while they profess what a "crisis" this is. Hire more administrators, setup more kangaroo courts, step on more individual rights, and hold more "education" events. All the while spending less time, money, and energy actually educating students in topics and subjects that they will need after they get out of school.

Voter fraud example #21

our journalists caught election officials at various poll sites who were more than willing to bend the rules to help our journalists potentially commit voter fraud.

Sharon Sweeting-Lindsey, a poll worker, advises a Project Veritas journalist on how she can get away with committing voter fraud by voting Democratic in Brooklyn by means of using a false address

At another polling location, a journalist from Yonkers asks to vote in Brooklyn. By law, she is not allowed to vote in Brooklyn, but the election worker lets her anyway, despite the journalist reaffirming that she lives in Yonkers.

“Our video exposes how corrupt and chaotic the New York Board of Elections has become. The system is broken, corrupt, and needs to be fixed immediately. If we can bring a fake van of voters into numerous polling sites, what’s going to stop a corrupt campaign from doing the same thing, says Project Veritas President James O’Keefe. 

Well, you know the old saying "the vote counting an't done until the Democrats won".

The country is SO screwed...

If this is the new "standard" college student, this country is SO screwed. Expatriation looks better and better every day...

More info at the link.

Why the news sucks, example #59683

This is yet another example of why the MSM just plain sucks and fails daily to do their jobs. This example is from the Washington Examiner. It is titled 'RNC mocks Clinton's 1-of-6 wins, 'embarrassing performance' with the first paragraph of:

Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus mocked Hillary Clinton's "embarrassing performance" in primaries and caucuses this week, chortling at her poor one-of-six wins.

What counts as "mocking" in this day and age? This does:

"Hillary Clinton's repeated stumbles at this stage of the race are another reminder of her deeply flawed candidacy. Winning only one out of six primaries and caucuses this week is an embarrassing performance for the Democrat front-runner," he said in a statement Sunday.

So, if you are a Republican, pointing out what every other Sanders support is pointing out is considered "mocking". What? Is Clinton such a delicate flower that she can not stand to hear the truth? Pointing out a fact also now counts as "chortling"! Oh the humanities! He [apparently] failed to show enough deference to Her Highness, the Lady Clinton! Off with his head!

As is typical for a news story these days, a liberal, leftist, Democrat has had a poor showing so the media must drag a Republican into the story to draw attention away from the Democrat.

What is really embarrassing and mock worthy is the sorry, pitiful state of journalism these days.

P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?

Mechanical computers

This [compiled] set of videos explains how mechanical computers work. These videos are fantastic! They were produced in 1953 to explain the workings of mechanical computers used in fire control computers (aiming the guns) on ships. The concepts are universal and the detailed explanations on how the different gear configurations operate is top-notch!

Enjoy!

For want of a princess...

There is an article in the New York Post titled: Toddlers and tiaras: The feminist upshot of playing princess. It is a lighter but interesting read as it discusses the issue of little girls playing princess. The author has also written a book that I have not read, on the same or a related topic.

The gist of her piece is that little girls should be free to play princess if they wish. That playing princess is actually a form of girl power and empowering. On that score I think she is correct and really, who cares what "rolls" kids play as long as they are not playing Charles Manson?

Good for her that she supports her daughter's princess-play. Where [I feel] she starts to go off the rails is when she describes the forces that oppose "princess-play". The nefarious, dark force allied against her daughter is:

• Society:
• society demeans everything that girls like
• our society automatically dismisses anything feminine as weak or second best
• society tells them it’s silly, that “girly” girls aren’t sensible girls, that femininity and power are polar opposites
• I am incensed by the notion that the male way automatically equals the right way

Where are all of these ideas coming from? I know she is blaming "society" but that is too easy an answer and [let us be honest] a cop-out. Who really is behind this? Who really denigrates and demeans princess play and supports these other ideas? Well, let us pick apart "society" and see...

We have fathers. What father does not view their daughter as a "little princess"? What father does not want their daughter to play princess and dress in those cute little outfits? None that I know of. What father demeans their daughter as weak and not sensible if she acts "girlie"? I really doubt that fathers are the source of this anti-princess play movement or these other anti-girl sentiments. Let us be honest while we are discussing fathers. There are other "males" that are not fathers and as is typical for most men, if you have no dog in the fight, you rarely care about the fight. So I also doubt non-father (i.e. single) men are the vast majority of the anti-princess-play / anti-girlie movement.

Grandparents? Grandparents that get to spoil their grand-daughters don't strike me as the source of princess play angst. In fact grandmothers are likely a prime source of princess-wear acquisition for little girls that have any volume of princess apparel. Grandparents are a primary source of girl spoiling, not girl denigrating.

Siblings? Well brothers will pick on sisters for any number of reasons and some may indeed include picking on sisters for dressing up and acting like princesses BUT I just can't see brothers as the movers and shakers in the "anti-princess play" crowd. Sisters on the other hand, should be allies in this "battle" to protect princess play.

What do we have left? Umm. Let me think... Why women (to include mothers)! To be specific, feminists are against princess play. They see it as weak, stereo-typical "girlie play" that should be crushed. They are also the same crowd that pushed "we can do anything a man can do", "women need men like fish need bicycle", and other "don't be a girlie girl" things like being against dolls and kitchen play sets, and easy bake ovens, and other "girlie" things. In fact the author herself is somewhat the form of her own destructer:

"I’ve treaded carefully; always avoided the pink aisle and never actively pushed any kind of princess play"

So if we drill down far enough, it is women that are at war with other women about princess play and other "girlie" things, whether or not it is a healthy outlet or a soul robbing, patriarchal chain with which to shackle a little girls dreams and aspirations.

Who spends money? Women. To whom is advertising directed? Predominantly women (cause they spend most of the money that gets spent). Who is this "society" that denegrates princess-play? Women.

Please stop blaming "society" for this. Instead ladies, gaze into that magic mirror and see your true foe.

P.S.

At one point, the author also includes a quote from Madeleine Albright, “Women’s empowerment is not merely a goal, but a cornerstone of democratic growth. Women raise issues that others overlook, devote energy to projects that others ignore, and reach out to constituencies that others neglect.”

Again, who are these undefined "others" of which she speaks? In this context, she must mean men. If women raise issues that others overlook, how many different "others" are there to choose from? If we remove all women from society, who is left? Why men of course. What "issues", "projects", and "constituencies" women address that men don't is left to the imagination. Do women bring a distinct and unique perspective to issues? Most definitely BUT I would not say women raise issues that would not otherwise be raised. Women have voices. Women have votes. Women have money and means. Women are involved in all aspects of society. There are multitudes of social services and agencies setup for supporting women and their needs. Where are this vast unexplored areas of women-dom? The only way that quote makes logical sense is as a quote designed to pander to women. Not to express a real issue. This is a female politician speaking to women, using verbiage designed to appeal to women without actually stating anything. The sad thing is that this meaningless quote stuck with the author enough for her to include it in this piece that relies on the same logical fallacy to make its point. Ladies, unlike many of your "sisters" I KNOW you can do better. Oh, and if you want to put on the princess dress and tiara, I say go for it.

Trump is NOT the problem...

Let me get this out of the way; I am not a huge Trump fan. He is not my first choice. He is not my second or even third choice. He might be a slightly better choice than your average Democratic politician. That said...

Trump is NOT the problem. He is just the most recent symptom of what ails the GOP. The Tea Party was the largest prior symptom and instead of addressing that group's very legitimate concerns about what had happened to the GOP and what its' "management" was doing, the GOP decided to double-down and do all that they could to marginalize and vilify that group and its concerns and goals.

The response to that willful disregard to legitimate concerns is what has enabled Trump to be. To further demonstrate how out of touch and how counter to the principles of the GOP the current members are, we have this latest of dust-ups.

Sanders supporters crashed a Trump event and cause such a ruckus that Trump decides to cancel. This is lauded by the left and right as a good thing. That a bunch of thugs stomp over someone's first amendment rights, stifle his right to speak, prevent the peaceable assembly of his supporters and cause his legal event to be cancelled. That this is labeled a "good thing" by both the left and the right AND Trump is further blamed for it a) is an appalling shame, b) runs counter to conservative principles, and c) shows how unfit ANY of the remaining GOP candidates are to lead the party.

I fully expect this sort of childish behavior from Democrats. They have time and again shown that they support free speech only when it is their speech. Anyone that has an alternate view can go pound sand. Their support for constitutional rights is tissue paper thin. I did NOT expect this sort of behavior from the right. WE all should stand up for ANYONE's right to say what they wish, whether you approve of what they are saying or NOT. Non negotiable! You either support the people's rights as granted by our creator or you don't. The GOP candidates SHOULD have rallied behind Trump and stood shoulder to shoulder with him in support if his and everyone's right to be heard.

The crybullies can not and should not ever win! The only acceptable answer to ideas or speech you do not support is more speech. Not shouting down and shutting up your opponents.

I am extremely disappointed in all of the GOP and especially the candidates for not standing up for what are supposed to be their core principles.

The blackest material in the world just got even more black

Back in 2014, a team of British researchers made headlines for producing the blackest material known to science. Called Vantablack, the material was so black, it absorbed all but 0.035 percent of visible light, which means to our eyes, it was borderline invisible. Now the blackest material ever made is even more black, with the inventors announcing that no spectrometer in the world is powerful enough to measure how much light it absorbs.

Obama's last SOTU

So, to summarize the most recent SOTU by President Obama all of the "pressing" problems of this country boil down to curing cancer. Everything else is secondary. Everyone is better off today than they were when he took office some 7 years ago. There is no [stoked by him and his administration] racial issues (to speak of), there is no [created by his idiotic policies] significant unemployment issues, no crime, budget deficits, health care, or security issues. The single most important issue left to tackle is curing cancer. This is so critical that he is throwing the full weight of the government at solving this problem [on par with putting a man on the moon - so he says] and he is so committed to getting this done that he has drafted the singular best mind within his administration to lead this heroic and herculean effort, Joe Biden. Yep. Slow Joe (the groper) Biden is in charge of the most important mission of this [and any] decade.

Wow, just wow.

As I am sure you have read from others, going to the moon was a engineering issue that was helped by money. We knew what to do and basically how to do it. We just needed enough money to get it done. Not to in any way belittle the effort as it was a fantastic effort for which a number of individuals paid for with their lives. Incredible things were done, discovered, created, and invented BUT the science behind it all was pretty well understood, We needed to learn how to implement the science. Not "discover" the science.

That is not this. That is not anywhere close to curing cancer. To start with there is no one cancer. There is no one cause for cancer and there is no one way that cancers happen. There are multiple gene mutations involved in each different type of cancer and we are still in the early stages of figuring out all of the genes with mutations that are involved.

Additionally, this is not like that because though "many of us" wanted to go to the moon, it was not [at its core] a business proposition but a national pride and discovery issue. No businesses were lining up to throw buckets of money at getting to the moon (then). Lots of good tech resulted from this drive to get there and many could and would argue (myself included) that all in all it was worth it and "a very good thing" but at that time it was not something that private businesses were clamoring to do. Cancer research and searching for a cure (and/or effective treatments) is something that many businesses and research units (higher Ed, etc.) are already currently and actively engaged in. In fact these groups are making discoveries every day. They are also producing treatments and new drugs and gene therapies now as well. There is a huge monetary incentive for private enterprises to get into this field and produce solutions AND make profits. There is no actual reason for government to start taking over this area and (let us be honest) meddle in it to a greater degree than it already does through the various medical and drug agencies that already oversee much of what takes place within this field.

That is unless the real reason for this "big push" into an area that is already full of big pushes (more of that great "lead from behind" leadership style that we have become accustomed to from President Three-putt) is not to focus attention and action on an important area of medical research but instead to a) focus attention away from all of the scandals and failures of this administration and b) to keep Joe in the news in a positive way such that he can be "pushed" into stepping into the presidential race if Hillary is forced to drop out.

Even most Democrats (excluding the truly insane ones) will admit that Hillary is a soiled brand. Too many of her recent failures won't go away and whenever she [and her MSM water carries] go to the standard Democrat play-book ("war on women" anyone) Trump points out how awful her and her husband have been to women throughout their careers, sucking all of the wind out of those sails. The only thing that scares the Democrats more than a Hillary win is a Sanders win. Most of the "main stream" Democrats (I know, I know) are scared out of their knickers by a possible Sanders win. Even they point and whisper "that one is REALLY crazy". So, if and when Hillary implodes, old Slow (grabby) Joe will be wheeled out to save the day. The funny thing is, compared to the two currently in the race, Joe actually looks sane BUT that is because the administration [and their friends in the MSM] have done a reasonable job of keeping all of the crazy out of the papers. Maybe they are hoping that if they pull this switch-a-ro late enough in the process, the Republicans will be caught off guard and unable to move quick enough to inform the public of the real Joe Biden. The touchy-feely, foot-in-mouth, ignorant of just too many things, says too many just-plain-dumb things Joe Biden.

We shall see.

P.S. Don't you just love how whenever anything (even those things we can see from miles away) goes wrong with an Obama policy, it is our fault? We just didn't understand. If he does not get his way it is not because his policies and ideas are idiotic, it is that we are too stupid to understand and if he were just a better communicator, we would "get it" and let him have his way. Between that and all those bad things that just keep happening to him, it is a wonder he has bothered to put up with us for so long. Also, for a person with a law degree and who taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, he does not seem to know very much about how the constitution works or what the President can and can not do based on the constitution.

P.P.S. Don't you think she (Hillary) looks tired?

The real story of the housing / economic crisis

Watch this video. It is an older video but it is still relevent as it explains how we had the largest economic crisis in the nation's history since the great depression and who was really behind it. You have NOT seen this explained this clearly on TV. At times, some of the truth slips out but no one in the MSM will put the full picture together for you as the real blame falls on all of the "wrong" people. The media loves to blame this crisis on wall street, on the republicans, on evil capitalists, in fact on everyone but those that actually made this happen. This is a fantastic video.

When female privilege backfires by Karen Straughan

Hillary's private email server and the FBI

Despite Hillary's statements to the contrary, some people continue to believe that she did in fact have classified emails on her private email server. For some reason, some people refuse to "let it go" and continue to claim Hillary had [despite her statements to the contrary] classified information on this unsecured email server that was under her control. This group of "right wing conspiracy nuts" includes some interesting people, like the FBI:

"They are now at over 1,200 classified emails. And, that's just for the ones we know about from the State Department. That does not include the ones that the FBI is, in fact, recovering from her hard drives."

Wait, what? But Hillary and the MSM have told us repeatedly that there is NO STORY THERE. This just can't be true!

"I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable," DiGenova said.

I wonder who the DNC will get to fill in for Hillary?