I've been fooling around with computers for 40 years. You'd think I'd be a whiz by now, but not really. Here's some stuff that I think I can use. Maybe you can too.
Update:
A cheatsheet for windows. For macs, you have to watch the video---sorry.
For a new desktop, press windowkey plus control plus D, to switch between desktops, press windowkey plus control plus arrow key, to close a window, press windowkey plus control plus F4.
To return to the desktop ( minimize all windows ) , press windowkey plus M, for a peek ( temporary view of the desktop, press windowkey plus comma
To run an app on the taskbar, press window key plus the number 1-9, which corresponds to its position on the taskbar
To run a split screen for two apps: start the app, then press windowkey plus left arrow. For the other half, press right arrow as above.
To run file manager, press windowkey plus E
To open the magnifier, press windowkey plus the plus key, to make it smaller again, press the minus key
To take a screenshot windowkey plus printscreen
To open action center press windowkey plus A
To adjust settings, windowkey plus I
To lock the computer windowkey plus L
Saturday, April 20, 2019
Friday, April 19, 2019
Mueller report
In my opinion, this is yet another circus. It is meant for the entertainment of the public, and not for the effective governance of the same.
If there was any real attempt to resolve the underlying issues, then Assange should have been apprehended much sooner. Evidently, these people are not really interested in that, and went chasing after phantoms. The phantom chase will find nothing, but there will be plenty to talk about afterwards. It isn't designed to resolve anything, but instead, it is meant to kick up a lot of dust.
They are admitting that there was no collusion. This is tantamount to saying that there was no basis for a criminal investigation. For, if there is no crime, there cannot be any investigation. At least, not a legal one. First, you must establish that there was a crime. Then, and only then, do you investigate that crime. Where was the crime? The report is tantamount to an admission of a phony investigation.
The report of the report did seem to say that Mueller claimed that the stolen emails came from a specific source. How this was proved wasn't mentioned, but I suspect that it was the Crowdstrike claim. This would not hold up in court, as they must know. Combine that with the refusal to go after Assange, and I am convinced that all of this is for show, and isn't a serious attempt to establish the facts.
Even now, they're not going after Assange on the basis of what the Russians were accused of doing. Nope. They are going after Assange on the basis of what Bradley Manning did, and the allegation that Assange somehow participated in it. There is no connection to the DNC hacking claim. Will these people ever ask that of Assange? In my opinion, the answer is "no".
It's just another circus.
If there was any real attempt to resolve the underlying issues, then Assange should have been apprehended much sooner. Evidently, these people are not really interested in that, and went chasing after phantoms. The phantom chase will find nothing, but there will be plenty to talk about afterwards. It isn't designed to resolve anything, but instead, it is meant to kick up a lot of dust.
They are admitting that there was no collusion. This is tantamount to saying that there was no basis for a criminal investigation. For, if there is no crime, there cannot be any investigation. At least, not a legal one. First, you must establish that there was a crime. Then, and only then, do you investigate that crime. Where was the crime? The report is tantamount to an admission of a phony investigation.
The report of the report did seem to say that Mueller claimed that the stolen emails came from a specific source. How this was proved wasn't mentioned, but I suspect that it was the Crowdstrike claim. This would not hold up in court, as they must know. Combine that with the refusal to go after Assange, and I am convinced that all of this is for show, and isn't a serious attempt to establish the facts.
Even now, they're not going after Assange on the basis of what the Russians were accused of doing. Nope. They are going after Assange on the basis of what Bradley Manning did, and the allegation that Assange somehow participated in it. There is no connection to the DNC hacking claim. Will these people ever ask that of Assange? In my opinion, the answer is "no".
It's just another circus.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Can't talk intelligently about what you don't know
MSNBC political analyst ask why Christians cannot be "nicer". Well, she actually asks about Jesus in particular, and that Christians should act more like Jesus.
If Christians acted more like Jesus, then liberals would really have problems. That's because there were plenty of times when Jesus wasn't very "nice".
In fact, he made the Jews in the temple so mad, they wanted to stone him to death several times. He called them liars and devils. He called them hypocrites. These were very pious people of that time. At least they were pious in their own minds, a lot like liberals today. In fact, it would seem that the Pharisees are a lot like liberals today. Liberals today think that they are so much better than the rest of us. Jesus would not be very nice to liberals these days, if he was anything like the way he was in the Gospels. He also said beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. Interpret that to mean, don't listen to them!
I don't think Jesus would be very nice to today's liberals. He said if the town you're in won't listen to you, then shake the dust off your feet when you leave. For it would be more tolerable in Sodom and Gomorrah than it would be in that town. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, by the way. Whether or not you believe that, that is what Jesus said. At the very least, it isn't very "nice" to want to say your town should be reduced to ashes.
Bringing up Sodom and Gomorrah was just the kind of thing that Jesus DID do. So, how can this analyst speak intelligently on the subject?
Update:
Sometimes it might be good to take your own advice, with respect to knowing your subject. Jesus said those things to the apostles as he sent them out. I used the word "you" in the generic sense. In any case, he did say it. So the point is still valid.
Besides, if Christians are to act like Jesus, then to say that they are to act like the Apostles too only confirms that. They were acting according to his command.
If Christians acted more like Jesus, then liberals would really have problems. That's because there were plenty of times when Jesus wasn't very "nice".
In fact, he made the Jews in the temple so mad, they wanted to stone him to death several times. He called them liars and devils. He called them hypocrites. These were very pious people of that time. At least they were pious in their own minds, a lot like liberals today. In fact, it would seem that the Pharisees are a lot like liberals today. Liberals today think that they are so much better than the rest of us. Jesus would not be very nice to liberals these days, if he was anything like the way he was in the Gospels. He also said beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. Interpret that to mean, don't listen to them!
I don't think Jesus would be very nice to today's liberals. He said if the town you're in won't listen to you, then shake the dust off your feet when you leave. For it would be more tolerable in Sodom and Gomorrah than it would be in that town. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, by the way. Whether or not you believe that, that is what Jesus said. At the very least, it isn't very "nice" to want to say your town should be reduced to ashes.
Bringing up Sodom and Gomorrah was just the kind of thing that Jesus DID do. So, how can this analyst speak intelligently on the subject?
Update:
Sometimes it might be good to take your own advice, with respect to knowing your subject. Jesus said those things to the apostles as he sent them out. I used the word "you" in the generic sense. In any case, he did say it. So the point is still valid.
Besides, if Christians are to act like Jesus, then to say that they are to act like the Apostles too only confirms that. They were acting according to his command.
AGW post 112, 4.18.19
Another title for this post could be, "How to Stop Worrying, and Love the Smog". But I jest.
Actually, one way to stop worrying is to "embrace the suck". If not in reality, than in one's own imagination. That's because worrying is mostly in one's own imagination. One creates these mental monsters in one's own head. One effective way to deal with these mental monsters is to define them, and then find useful strategies to deal with them.
So, in order to embrace the suck, let's pretend that the doomsters are right. So, what exactly are the doomsters saying? Let's exclude the politicians for now. The politicians say we are all going to die. That is, unless we vote for them, and they will ride to our rescue.
If we listen to the worse case scenarios, the oceans will rise eight feet. That's pretty bad, but it will take 80 years to happen. Plenty of time to adjust. Secondly, temperatures will get hotter out there. If no action is taken, people will die. Yeah? If you don't eat, you will die too. In 80 years, you may die of old age anyway. But, never mind. If it gets hotter, you can adjust to that. If you don't adjust to changing circumstance, you will die in any case. But that's life, is it not?
Back to the politicians. Since, the worse case scenarios are not existential in nature, but a matter of convenience, then what to do? Would you want to give up today's comforts, so that somebody in the future won't have to be uncomfortable? It will take 80 years to get to that point even in their worst case scenario. But they'll say: "what about future generations"? But you can ask: "what about today?" What about those cities that will disappear? Well, cities have been disappearing anyway. Have you noticed Detroit lately?
Okay, we've embraced the suck for a moment. Looking on the other side of the coin, these predictions have been wrong for the most part for the last 30 years. If they keep getting it wrong at this rate, we won't even have to embrace the suck even in our imaginations. So, stop worrying, and love you up some smog.
Actually, one way to stop worrying is to "embrace the suck". If not in reality, than in one's own imagination. That's because worrying is mostly in one's own imagination. One creates these mental monsters in one's own head. One effective way to deal with these mental monsters is to define them, and then find useful strategies to deal with them.
So, in order to embrace the suck, let's pretend that the doomsters are right. So, what exactly are the doomsters saying? Let's exclude the politicians for now. The politicians say we are all going to die. That is, unless we vote for them, and they will ride to our rescue.
If we listen to the worse case scenarios, the oceans will rise eight feet. That's pretty bad, but it will take 80 years to happen. Plenty of time to adjust. Secondly, temperatures will get hotter out there. If no action is taken, people will die. Yeah? If you don't eat, you will die too. In 80 years, you may die of old age anyway. But, never mind. If it gets hotter, you can adjust to that. If you don't adjust to changing circumstance, you will die in any case. But that's life, is it not?
Back to the politicians. Since, the worse case scenarios are not existential in nature, but a matter of convenience, then what to do? Would you want to give up today's comforts, so that somebody in the future won't have to be uncomfortable? It will take 80 years to get to that point even in their worst case scenario. But they'll say: "what about future generations"? But you can ask: "what about today?" What about those cities that will disappear? Well, cities have been disappearing anyway. Have you noticed Detroit lately?
Okay, we've embraced the suck for a moment. Looking on the other side of the coin, these predictions have been wrong for the most part for the last 30 years. If they keep getting it wrong at this rate, we won't even have to embrace the suck even in our imaginations. So, stop worrying, and love you up some smog.
Coulter jumps the shark
After saying that she would consider voting for a Socialist, she has lost all credibility.
I wonder what got her on this track. Is it money? Seems like money is at the center of all troubles.
I know that is true in my own case, but I would not ever vote for anyone on the left for president. The presidency is so powerful in this country. If you were to vote for a socialist, then you get a whole lot of stuff you aren't going to want. Assuming of course, that you are "conservative" to begin with. Maybe she never really was. Come to think of it, there really aren't that many out there.
I wonder what got her on this track. Is it money? Seems like money is at the center of all troubles.
I know that is true in my own case, but I would not ever vote for anyone on the left for president. The presidency is so powerful in this country. If you were to vote for a socialist, then you get a whole lot of stuff you aren't going to want. Assuming of course, that you are "conservative" to begin with. Maybe she never really was. Come to think of it, there really aren't that many out there.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
If you want to feel better
Just check out a video of ancient Roman's morals. That one might make you a shouting optimist.
The ancient Romans were really depraved. There's no need to list what they did, as a lot of it is common knowledge. But even I was stunned at how bad they really were.
Of course, that doesn't mean this country is in good shape. With idiots like these, ancient Rome's depravity is starting to look like a real possibility here. But it may take a little while yet.
The ancient Romans were really depraved. There's no need to list what they did, as a lot of it is common knowledge. But even I was stunned at how bad they really were.
Of course, that doesn't mean this country is in good shape. With idiots like these, ancient Rome's depravity is starting to look like a real possibility here. But it may take a little while yet.
Beato and Bootygigger
Today, we look at the Beato part of the dynamic dunderheads.
Beato says "sacrifice" is needed in order to face an "existential" crisis. He is referring to AGW.
How is AGW "existential"? Even at its worse, it isn't going to doom the human race. Rising global temperatures, should it be a real thing, is a phenomenon that humans can survive. After all, it has happened before. Humans survived the thaw out from the last ice age. This was also a type of "global warming". No doom for the little earth creatures. Even the dynamic dunderheads can thrive in these temperatures.
Perhaps Beato can be a little more specific as to why this is an existential challenge.
I am being rather generous to Beato. I could be tougher. It wouldn't be hard.
Beato says "sacrifice" is needed in order to face an "existential" crisis. He is referring to AGW.
How is AGW "existential"? Even at its worse, it isn't going to doom the human race. Rising global temperatures, should it be a real thing, is a phenomenon that humans can survive. After all, it has happened before. Humans survived the thaw out from the last ice age. This was also a type of "global warming". No doom for the little earth creatures. Even the dynamic dunderheads can thrive in these temperatures.
Perhaps Beato can be a little more specific as to why this is an existential challenge.
I am being rather generous to Beato. I could be tougher. It wouldn't be hard.
Barr is going to look into the predicates
Updated,
4.17.19:
Here is a layout of events leading to the appointment of Mueller. It would seem that Barr should be vitally interested in these, but will he???
4.10.19:
Well, he might consider looking at the Wikileaks occurring due to Russian hacking. It seems quite irregular to me to not confirm this, or deny this, with a check on the site of the crime--- the DNC itself. The DNC didn't allow that. If there's no confirmation, there can be no predicate.
If you are going to accept hearsay as an adequate predicate, then the rest of this is academic.
Of course, there are many other things to look at, but they pretty much follow the same pattern.
4.17.19:
Here is a layout of events leading to the appointment of Mueller. It would seem that Barr should be vitally interested in these, but will he???
The DOJ and FBI Influence of Dana Boente... https://t.co/mGNUPTg8f9 via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) April 17, 2019
4.10.19:
Well, he might consider looking at the Wikileaks occurring due to Russian hacking. It seems quite irregular to me to not confirm this, or deny this, with a check on the site of the crime--- the DNC itself. The DNC didn't allow that. If there's no confirmation, there can be no predicate.
If you are going to accept hearsay as an adequate predicate, then the rest of this is academic.
Of course, there are many other things to look at, but they pretty much follow the same pattern.
Turn of events
Updated,
4.17.19:
Seems to me that people were denying that there was celebrations of 9/11 at that time. Just to be on the record, here is evidence that there are celebrations of the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.
I want to be able to point to this record if that time comes. Of course, we have a president these days who doesn't shy away from remembering what happened on 9/11/2001. Unfortunately, there are those, in the GOP, who would rather forget. ( but I don't have a link to that, drat it. ) Now you know, if you didn't know already, what is wrong with these never Trumpers.
4.16.19:
early in day:
It has been in the news that one of the new female Muslim congress critters said that "some people did something" on 9/11/01. To which Trump responded, and now there is an attempt to make her into some type of victim.
Along comes the fire at the Notre Dame in Paris, and here we are. What to make of this?
Since 9/11 got mentioned, I'd would like to share what I remember about that date. It was something that I remember hearing been said about it at that time. What it was is this: the Muslims see that we don't defend our culture. The 9/11 terrorist attack is seen as a result of our failure to defend our own culture. It is seen by these people, and they see it as weakness, and it encourages attacks.
The 9/11 attacks and this fire may well be linked, then.
Why?
Notre Dame is fully a part of Western Culture. It is an important symbol, like the Twin Towers were, and the Pentagon. Therefore, it is attacked for its symbolic value. If you are going to defend the culture, you cannot allow the symbols of that culture to be attacked with impunity. But that happens over and over again in our culture. The attack doesn't have to come from the outside. It also comes from the inside.
This is ample reason to believe that the failure to defend our own culture within is being used by own enemies on the outside to attack us on our inside.
The words of Ilhan Omar ( if I got the name right ) is worthy of the most stringent criticism. It only encourages the likes who attacked on 9/11 to keep attacking because they think that this will eventually bring down our culture. They may be right.
We should be very careful about how we deal with dissent in our country. Much of the dissent seems to be directed in very destructive ways. We may be encouraging worse attacks in the future.
Update:
1 pm:
Some of the jihadis are celebrating. It is noted here so that it won't be forgotten, or denied.
4.17.19:
Seems to me that people were denying that there was celebrations of 9/11 at that time. Just to be on the record, here is evidence that there are celebrations of the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.
I want to be able to point to this record if that time comes. Of course, we have a president these days who doesn't shy away from remembering what happened on 9/11/2001. Unfortunately, there are those, in the GOP, who would rather forget. ( but I don't have a link to that, drat it. ) Now you know, if you didn't know already, what is wrong with these never Trumpers.
4.16.19:
early in day:
It has been in the news that one of the new female Muslim congress critters said that "some people did something" on 9/11/01. To which Trump responded, and now there is an attempt to make her into some type of victim.
Along comes the fire at the Notre Dame in Paris, and here we are. What to make of this?
Since 9/11 got mentioned, I'd would like to share what I remember about that date. It was something that I remember hearing been said about it at that time. What it was is this: the Muslims see that we don't defend our culture. The 9/11 terrorist attack is seen as a result of our failure to defend our own culture. It is seen by these people, and they see it as weakness, and it encourages attacks.
The 9/11 attacks and this fire may well be linked, then.
Why?
Notre Dame is fully a part of Western Culture. It is an important symbol, like the Twin Towers were, and the Pentagon. Therefore, it is attacked for its symbolic value. If you are going to defend the culture, you cannot allow the symbols of that culture to be attacked with impunity. But that happens over and over again in our culture. The attack doesn't have to come from the outside. It also comes from the inside.
This is ample reason to believe that the failure to defend our own culture within is being used by own enemies on the outside to attack us on our inside.
The words of Ilhan Omar ( if I got the name right ) is worthy of the most stringent criticism. It only encourages the likes who attacked on 9/11 to keep attacking because they think that this will eventually bring down our culture. They may be right.
We should be very careful about how we deal with dissent in our country. Much of the dissent seems to be directed in very destructive ways. We may be encouraging worse attacks in the future.
Update:
1 pm:
Some of the jihadis are celebrating. It is noted here so that it won't be forgotten, or denied.
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
Is AOC a liar, an incompetent, or both?
There was an article I read yesterday in which AOC said emoluments was the number one reason for impeaching Trump. ( It might have been this article, but I don't remember exactly.)
So, what is an emolument? If you don't know what it is, how can you talk about it? A search of the US Constitution shows three mentions of the word.
So, what is an emolument? If you don't know what it is, how can you talk about it? A search of the US Constitution shows three mentions of the word.
- Article I, Section 6, which lays out the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch
- Article I, Section 9, which prohibits any payments from any King, Prince, or foreign state. and,
- Article III, Section 1, which pertains to the Presidency. It prohibits any "emolument" from any other state, including from the other states in the union. This is related to how he is paid.
Therefore, to go after Trump, where does AOC have to go within these clauses, and what does she have to prove? The first pertains only to how Congress is compensated by the US Government, and even then, it only relates to how much. The second pertains to foreign states, and is regulated by Congress. The third is an additional restriction placed upon the Presidency.
The question is this: is an investment in a foreign country an "emolument"? An investment can be strictly private, and not have anything to do with a foreign state, even if it is in a foreign country. In any case, if Congress hasn't decided, or made a definite prohibition against it already, then any changes now would be ex post facto, or "after the fact". Ex post facto laws are prohibited under the Constitution.
AOC either knows this, or she doesn't. If she doesn't, she is an ignoramus. If she does, then she is a liar. For if the President is definitely in violation of a law already on the books, then they already have their cause for impeachment. Except that they probably don't. She could be making it up, or she doesn't know what she is talking about.
Why bother with Russian collusion if they already have a violation in plain sight?
The Race Issue And Politics
Updated,
4.16.19:
A bit more study of the race issue and politics, state-by-state comparisons. This time, combinations of states were compared in order to discover some insight into voting patterns.
A brief description of a hypothesis follows: voting patterns are largely determined by voter identification. It is known otherwise as identity politics. Even those who deny it are engaged in it. It all depends upon what the voter identifies with. It could be race, or it could be something else. A study of race does not yield a 100% predictor of outcomes.
In other words, race is not the only factor involved. For example, as seen below, some states are predominately white. In fact, you could even say that they are lily white. There are very few non-white persons in the New England area north of New York. But they vote as reliably Democrat as the most racially diverse state in the union--- California. Certainly, race is not adequately describing those outcomes.
4.15.19:
early post that day:
It seems that this is all some people want to talk about. So, let's take a look at race in this country, shall we?
It was mentioned in a comment on a blog somewhere that Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont is nearly all white. So, is that true? Seems to be. According to the Census Bureau, Vermont was 95 percent white in 2010. The data may be getting a bit old, but why would the numbers change all that much?
I expanded the search into the following New England states (white percentage of population) :
New Hampshire.... 94%
Maine ................95%
Conn. ................. 78%
Mass. .................. 80%
New York ......... 66%
New York may not be in New England, but it is still pretty white.
Almost all of these states are reliably Democrat. Which is curious. Why would all these white folks vote for Democrats? But a good many must be, because they are reliably Democrat, and there are so many white folks there.
Continuing on down south a bit..
Pennsylvania ..... 84%
Maryland .......... 58% ( lots of black folks there, about 30%)
Delaware .......... 69% ( black is about 20%)
As you make your way into the former Confederate states, the black population goes up as one might expect. Maryland and Delaware have large black populations, but Pennsylvania, not quite so much. Yet, Pennsylvania has been reliably Democrat, except in 2016.
So far, I have listed nine states. Rarely do GOP Presidential candidates win any of these states, but they are predominately white. The lowest number percentage-wise, is in Maryland. Yet, the white percentage is well above fifty percent.
Can anybody explain why so many white folks vote for a party that doesn't seem to like them very much?
One thing is true... These states are the furtherest from the border with Mexico. Could it be that most of these people are insulated from the effects of mass migration? Democrats like to play the race card on the issue, but Latinos aren't necessarily opposed to Trump's wall. Something else must be at work here.
Update:
same day:
A brief note here... These numbers are based upon census numbers that are obtained from questions on a census form. People can self-identify in any manner they choose. They could be white, but self-identify as black. What I am getting at is that these numbers may be taken with a grain of salt.
Perhaps Liz Warren can identify as Native American, but her DNA says she's a pale face.
4.16.19:
A bit more study of the race issue and politics, state-by-state comparisons. This time, combinations of states were compared in order to discover some insight into voting patterns.
A brief description of a hypothesis follows: voting patterns are largely determined by voter identification. It is known otherwise as identity politics. Even those who deny it are engaged in it. It all depends upon what the voter identifies with. It could be race, or it could be something else. A study of race does not yield a 100% predictor of outcomes.
In other words, race is not the only factor involved. For example, as seen below, some states are predominately white. In fact, you could even say that they are lily white. There are very few non-white persons in the New England area north of New York. But they vote as reliably Democrat as the most racially diverse state in the union--- California. Certainly, race is not adequately describing those outcomes.
4.15.19:
early post that day:
It seems that this is all some people want to talk about. So, let's take a look at race in this country, shall we?
It was mentioned in a comment on a blog somewhere that Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont is nearly all white. So, is that true? Seems to be. According to the Census Bureau, Vermont was 95 percent white in 2010. The data may be getting a bit old, but why would the numbers change all that much?
I expanded the search into the following New England states (white percentage of population) :
New Hampshire.... 94%
Maine ................95%
Conn. ................. 78%
Mass. .................. 80%
New York ......... 66%
New York may not be in New England, but it is still pretty white.
Almost all of these states are reliably Democrat. Which is curious. Why would all these white folks vote for Democrats? But a good many must be, because they are reliably Democrat, and there are so many white folks there.
Continuing on down south a bit..
Pennsylvania ..... 84%
Maryland .......... 58% ( lots of black folks there, about 30%)
Delaware .......... 69% ( black is about 20%)
As you make your way into the former Confederate states, the black population goes up as one might expect. Maryland and Delaware have large black populations, but Pennsylvania, not quite so much. Yet, Pennsylvania has been reliably Democrat, except in 2016.
So far, I have listed nine states. Rarely do GOP Presidential candidates win any of these states, but they are predominately white. The lowest number percentage-wise, is in Maryland. Yet, the white percentage is well above fifty percent.
Can anybody explain why so many white folks vote for a party that doesn't seem to like them very much?
One thing is true... These states are the furtherest from the border with Mexico. Could it be that most of these people are insulated from the effects of mass migration? Democrats like to play the race card on the issue, but Latinos aren't necessarily opposed to Trump's wall. Something else must be at work here.
Update:
same day:
A brief note here... These numbers are based upon census numbers that are obtained from questions on a census form. People can self-identify in any manner they choose. They could be white, but self-identify as black. What I am getting at is that these numbers may be taken with a grain of salt.
Perhaps Liz Warren can identify as Native American, but her DNA says she's a pale face.
Monday, April 15, 2019
Jerome Corsi: Julian Assange Has Information That Could "Destroy The Russian Hoax"
Comment:
It would need to be proof that could not be easily denied. Because it will definitely be denied. He could have 8x8 glossies and videotape of it, and they would still deny it.
Here's what may be getting covered up:
It would need to be proof that could not be easily denied. Because it will definitely be denied. He could have 8x8 glossies and videotape of it, and they would still deny it.
Here's what may be getting covered up:
Jerome Corsi: Julian Assange Has Information That Could "Destroy The Russian Hoax" https://t.co/zSRXphTKfv— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) April 15, 2019
Why Isn’t Assange Charged with ‘Collusion with Russia’?
Andrew McCarthy at NRO
He wants to know what is going on? It is a good question. Keep in mind that Hillary wants to go after Assange. There are a lot of people who supported Hillary in 2016.
Assange could be paying for the crime that they won't make Bradley Manning pay for.
But McCarthy believes that the Russians really did hack those emails. Assange says that they didn't.
Come to think of it, how would Assange know if he is holed up in an Embassy? It isn't the Russian Embassy. How does Assange know WHO did it?
But they are going after him for Bradley Manning's crime. Why not charge him for collusion and ask them for their proof? Surely that is not so hard for the government to prove, but no, can't do that.
McCarthy is worried about Russian propaganda victories. Well, if the Russians get one from this, who gave it to them??? HMMMMMMMMM??????
As for investigating Russian collusion, by all means investigate. Just don't hire a special prosecutor for what is essentially an intelligence investigation. Here is what is wrong with this. An intelligence investigation can refer this to a criminal investigation entity if there is any warrant for it. However, there isn't as much political hay that could be made with such an investigation. The Mueller investigation was political.
Going after Assange is also political. But who gets to run this show? Is Hillary in the White House or Trump?
Update:
What do they want, the truth, or a scapegoat for Hillary and the Democrat's failures.
He wants to know what is going on? It is a good question. Keep in mind that Hillary wants to go after Assange. There are a lot of people who supported Hillary in 2016.
Assange could be paying for the crime that they won't make Bradley Manning pay for.
But McCarthy believes that the Russians really did hack those emails. Assange says that they didn't.
Come to think of it, how would Assange know if he is holed up in an Embassy? It isn't the Russian Embassy. How does Assange know WHO did it?
But they are going after him for Bradley Manning's crime. Why not charge him for collusion and ask them for their proof? Surely that is not so hard for the government to prove, but no, can't do that.
McCarthy is worried about Russian propaganda victories. Well, if the Russians get one from this, who gave it to them??? HMMMMMMMMM??????
As for investigating Russian collusion, by all means investigate. Just don't hire a special prosecutor for what is essentially an intelligence investigation. Here is what is wrong with this. An intelligence investigation can refer this to a criminal investigation entity if there is any warrant for it. However, there isn't as much political hay that could be made with such an investigation. The Mueller investigation was political.
Going after Assange is also political. But who gets to run this show? Is Hillary in the White House or Trump?
Update:
What do they want, the truth, or a scapegoat for Hillary and the Democrat's failures.
Why Isn’t Assange Charged with ‘Collusion with Russia’? https://t.co/8iL9Itp0eA— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) April 15, 2019
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Book: "Know Thine Enemy"
Without reading it, I pose the following question: Do you really know who, and what you are fighting?
Without an answer to the question, it's all futility.
There are seemingly limitless ways to deceive, and be deceived. Therein lies the clue, but it is elusive. That is where it gets its power.
Without an answer to the question, it's all futility.
There are seemingly limitless ways to deceive, and be deceived. Therein lies the clue, but it is elusive. That is where it gets its power.
AP: "Charging Assange reflects dramatic shift in US approach"
Comment:
Not really. They will charge Assange with conspiracy to obtain the documents, not with publishing the documents. Therefore, the First Amendment does not apply.
The left is trying to obfuscate the issue. They have something to hide, I bet.
The case might not hold up, though. My guess is that they may want to get Assange to talk about the emails that sparked the Russian collusion hysteria. If they make a deal with Assange for those, then what he says could be a problem for Hillary and Co.
Not really. They will charge Assange with conspiracy to obtain the documents, not with publishing the documents. Therefore, the First Amendment does not apply.
The left is trying to obfuscate the issue. They have something to hide, I bet.
The case might not hold up, though. My guess is that they may want to get Assange to talk about the emails that sparked the Russian collusion hysteria. If they make a deal with Assange for those, then what he says could be a problem for Hillary and Co.
Charging Assange reflects dramatic shift in US approach https://t.co/VlNbBGlPGN— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) April 14, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)