Actually, it is an old blog. It is repurposed to go into another direction.
The old address was the "Cheat You Fair" blog. All posts were deleted, and the blog is now a private blog.
It is called "Private blogger". Only those who I allow to read it can read it. Right now, there is nothing there. If there's any interest in reading what's there in the future, if anybody, can leave a comment here on this blog.
I will consider each person on their own merits. I reserve the right to refuse anybody or to allow anybody on the Private blogger if I so choose.
If nobody is interested, then there's no harm done. Nothing is there anymore, anyway.
Saturday, August 10, 2019
One reason that you can bet that there was no "collusion"
Updated:
8.10.19:
Epstein is found dead. The thought occurred to me that the thousands of emails found on Anthony Weiner's computer could have some connection to the Epstein story. Weiner is guilty of sex crimes already. His wife is / was Huma Abedin, Hillary's fill-in-the-blank type person.
Did Epstein really commit suicide, or was he murdered?
Given how corrupt our culture has become, it is now a much discussed, and much believed possibility. All the more reason to go deeper into those emails. That is, if the government has not destroyed them yet. You know, like the ones Hillary has already destroyed.
Let that last paragraph sink in a bit deeper.
5.14.18:
Conservative Treehouse has put up this video which discusses what I wrote previously. My take is also provided below.
It may be repetitive to point out all of the details herein, so let me point out the part which I think may be worth digging in a bit deeper.
The emails released by Weiner were staggering in number. It should be obvious by now that the Russians did not hack the Wikileaks' emails. There are so many here that there is no way you can say that there is just one source for the emails. Indeed, the whole point of the Hillary email scandal is that it was a national security breach, for which Hillary should have been disqualified to serve as President. I was raising hell about this all during the election, by the way.
Anyway, why didn't they go deeper into these emails? The following video may provide some insight into that. Start at about ten minutes into the twelve minute video.
After watching some of it, I am not satisfied that motive is being pinpointed. For that, they would have had to go deeper into the emails than they did. All they wanted to do was to whitewash the investigation, so that they could clear Hillary. Comey said as much himself recently.
There could be a lot of very damaging stuff that is being swept under the rug here. Covering this up is the key to understanding why they made the audacious move to frame Trump for a phony crime.
To find the answers, go back through these emails.
5.12.18:
It should also be pointed out that McCabe sat on those emails for a month before Comey found out about them. Comey had cleared Clinton the first time, then he reopened the case after Weiner's attorney forked over these emails. So, that put Comey on the spot, and he decides to reopen the phony investigation. They didn't look at these new emails, but some of them may be pretty durn bad.
McCabe sits on them, and Comey reopens at the last minute, and closes again. Hillary blames Comey for this, but it was really Weiner who screwed her over. Weiner was married to Huma Abedin, who was rumored to be Hillary's concubine.
It was all blamed on the Russians and ginned up so that they can cover up this mess. For if the Dems win the House or Senate, you'll never hear about any of this.
So, it will be Russia this and Russia that for as long as they can get away with it.
originally posted 5.11.18:
the original post follows:
A recent report on Conservative Tree House, which pointed out that thousands of emails were turned over to the FBI in September 2016. This was done by Anthony Weiner's attorney. It was this event that caused Comey to reopen the investigation of the emails. ( Which was a phony cover up type of "investigation" anyway. )
The significance of this is that Hillary's email account has always been rather weak on security. Anybody could have gotten those emails. If Anthony Weiner had 'em, anybody could have gotten 'em.
Therefore, the release of the Wikileaks emails were not the result of hacking. Without this, and without John Podesta's emails, where would they have been able to turn in order to gin up this collusion story?
There was no collusion. People are still writing about this in order to keep the Whine Industrial Complex humming. Besides that, collusion isn't illegal.
If Mueller was fired, there might be a lot of commotion for awhile. Eventually, they'd have to pipe down, or get violent. If they got violent, then they would be desperate, and then they could be finished off.
Yep. The way to end all this is to stop feeding the machine. Pour sand into the crankcase, and sugar into the gas tank. End it and we can get back to being a country again.
8.10.19:
Epstein is found dead. The thought occurred to me that the thousands of emails found on Anthony Weiner's computer could have some connection to the Epstein story. Weiner is guilty of sex crimes already. His wife is / was Huma Abedin, Hillary's fill-in-the-blank type person.
Did Epstein really commit suicide, or was he murdered?
Given how corrupt our culture has become, it is now a much discussed, and much believed possibility. All the more reason to go deeper into those emails. That is, if the government has not destroyed them yet. You know, like the ones Hillary has already destroyed.
Let that last paragraph sink in a bit deeper.
5.14.18:
Conservative Treehouse has put up this video which discusses what I wrote previously. My take is also provided below.
It may be repetitive to point out all of the details herein, so let me point out the part which I think may be worth digging in a bit deeper.
The emails released by Weiner were staggering in number. It should be obvious by now that the Russians did not hack the Wikileaks' emails. There are so many here that there is no way you can say that there is just one source for the emails. Indeed, the whole point of the Hillary email scandal is that it was a national security breach, for which Hillary should have been disqualified to serve as President. I was raising hell about this all during the election, by the way.
Anyway, why didn't they go deeper into these emails? The following video may provide some insight into that. Start at about ten minutes into the twelve minute video.
After watching some of it, I am not satisfied that motive is being pinpointed. For that, they would have had to go deeper into the emails than they did. All they wanted to do was to whitewash the investigation, so that they could clear Hillary. Comey said as much himself recently.
There could be a lot of very damaging stuff that is being swept under the rug here. Covering this up is the key to understanding why they made the audacious move to frame Trump for a phony crime.
To find the answers, go back through these emails.
5.12.18:
It should also be pointed out that McCabe sat on those emails for a month before Comey found out about them. Comey had cleared Clinton the first time, then he reopened the case after Weiner's attorney forked over these emails. So, that put Comey on the spot, and he decides to reopen the phony investigation. They didn't look at these new emails, but some of them may be pretty durn bad.
McCabe sits on them, and Comey reopens at the last minute, and closes again. Hillary blames Comey for this, but it was really Weiner who screwed her over. Weiner was married to Huma Abedin, who was rumored to be Hillary's concubine.
It was all blamed on the Russians and ginned up so that they can cover up this mess. For if the Dems win the House or Senate, you'll never hear about any of this.
So, it will be Russia this and Russia that for as long as they can get away with it.
originally posted 5.11.18:
the original post follows:
A recent report on Conservative Tree House, which pointed out that thousands of emails were turned over to the FBI in September 2016. This was done by Anthony Weiner's attorney. It was this event that caused Comey to reopen the investigation of the emails. ( Which was a phony cover up type of "investigation" anyway. )
The significance of this is that Hillary's email account has always been rather weak on security. Anybody could have gotten those emails. If Anthony Weiner had 'em, anybody could have gotten 'em.
Therefore, the release of the Wikileaks emails were not the result of hacking. Without this, and without John Podesta's emails, where would they have been able to turn in order to gin up this collusion story?
There was no collusion. People are still writing about this in order to keep the Whine Industrial Complex humming. Besides that, collusion isn't illegal.
If Mueller was fired, there might be a lot of commotion for awhile. Eventually, they'd have to pipe down, or get violent. If they got violent, then they would be desperate, and then they could be finished off.
Yep. The way to end all this is to stop feeding the machine. Pour sand into the crankcase, and sugar into the gas tank. End it and we can get back to being a country again.
Friday, August 9, 2019
Brennan doesn't know anything, but he knows Trump is a traitor
Comment:
The Fairy Godmother must have done it. Nobody seems to know anything, but there it is.
The Fairy Godmother must have done it. Nobody seems to know anything, but there it is.
*NEW VIDEO*— Declassified - with Gina Shakespeare (@declassified_ET) August 9, 2019
Did Brennan Perjure Himself in Denying Use of Steele Dossier?
Former #CIA Director John #Brennan might have perjured himself in testimony he delivered more than two years ago...
WATCH ▷▷▷ https://t.co/wO1RimQAEG@PoliticalShort @EpochTimes pic.twitter.com/etOX9OBBuu
Truth coming home to roost
Comment:
Plainly evident that the FISA warrant on Carter Page was based upon a fraud.
Plainly evident that the FISA warrant on Carter Page was based upon a fraud.
Revealing the systemic coup between Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele - https://t.co/28b0n8AXnf via @commdiginews— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 9, 2019
Was the "smoking gun" tape that brought down Nixon full of "blanks"?
Comment:
The author claims that Nixon did not have to resign, nor did he have to be impeached. The system failed to render justice.
Chilling that it could happen again.
The author claims that Nixon did not have to resign, nor did he have to be impeached. The system failed to render justice.
Chilling that it could happen again.
Nixon’s Watergate defense lawyers completely misinterpreted the tape, and their mistake ended his presidency.https://t.co/zsduYvbYfG— The American Spectator (@amspectator) August 9, 2019
"Red Flag" laws raise constitutional red flags
Comment:
Nobody seems interested in the most likely means of stopping these incidents. Regulation of gun-free zones.
To put it most directly, if you are going to have a gun-free zone, you are providing an implied guarantee of security. Failure to enforce this restriction should result in penalties for the guarantor.
Of course, NOBODY is interested in this, because it would work.
Nobody seems interested in the most likely means of stopping these incidents. Regulation of gun-free zones.
To put it most directly, if you are going to have a gun-free zone, you are providing an implied guarantee of security. Failure to enforce this restriction should result in penalties for the guarantor.
Of course, NOBODY is interested in this, because it would work.
— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) August 8, 2019
How do they wiggle out of this one?
Comment:
Well, let's see. The tweet says the FBI swears that Steele wasn't a direct source to the FISA court. Who are the FBI representatives involved in this fraud? Would James Comey be one of them? He signed the FISA app for the warrant against Carter Page. Anybody else?
Well, let's see. The tweet says the FBI swears that Steele wasn't a direct source to the FISA court. Who are the FBI representatives involved in this fraud? Would James Comey be one of them? He signed the FISA app for the warrant against Carter Page. Anybody else?
This Nov 22 2016 Bruce Ohr 302 just released by @JudicialWatch strongly hints FBI had info to suspect Steele was source of the Sep 23 2016 @Isikoff Yahoo News article— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) August 9, 2019
BIG PROBLEM: FBI continued to swear they didn’t think Steele was a direct source to the FISA court AFTER this 🚨 pic.twitter.com/N2u7J4SSKe
Is it all designed to get Trump to cave in on the Second Amendment?
Updated,
8.9.19:
This new item allows me to segue into a thought I had last night. The thought is that there is an "August Recess" in process. That means that in order to pass any new gun-control laws, they need to be in session.
Evidently, Pelosi cannot do that on her own, and now she calls upon the POTUS to call the Senate back into session. By the way, that is a joke, because the Senate isn't in recess. If it were, the POTUS could "recess appoint" dozens of new personnel that is being blocked because the Senate refuses to recess.
All the same, Pelosi and Co. cannot write any laws unless Congress returns to session. So the question arises: How long can the Democrats keep the demagogue act going?
Pelosi calls it an "extraordinary" time. The only thing "extraordinary" about this time is the hype associated with it.
8.8.19:
Comment:
The title of this post is a paraphrasing of a comment made by Glenn Reynolds with respect to the link below.
Now for my take... Trump shouldn't have played the game that he did shortly after the attack. He confirmed what shouldn't have been confirmed. He emboldened these people, and now he will be forced to veto a bill in order to save his Presidency.
If he doesn't veto what he invited, he may well fail in his reelection bid. That is why I wrote as I did. The left can do whatever, but if Trump vetoes anything that comes down the pike, they will need 2/3rds of both houses in order to override. This isn't likely.
There was no reason to kowtow to people who only want to destroy you. They'll never be appeased. It was a mistake.
I don't criticize Trump very much. Hopefully, this wasn't what it appeared to be.
8.9.19:
This new item allows me to segue into a thought I had last night. The thought is that there is an "August Recess" in process. That means that in order to pass any new gun-control laws, they need to be in session.
Evidently, Pelosi cannot do that on her own, and now she calls upon the POTUS to call the Senate back into session. By the way, that is a joke, because the Senate isn't in recess. If it were, the POTUS could "recess appoint" dozens of new personnel that is being blocked because the Senate refuses to recess.
All the same, Pelosi and Co. cannot write any laws unless Congress returns to session. So the question arises: How long can the Democrats keep the demagogue act going?
Pelosi calls it an "extraordinary" time. The only thing "extraordinary" about this time is the hype associated with it.
Pelosi demands Trump recall Senate to consider reforms aimed at gun violence https://t.co/wkHmnQaCoS— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 9, 2019
8.8.19:
Comment:
The title of this post is a paraphrasing of a comment made by Glenn Reynolds with respect to the link below.
Now for my take... Trump shouldn't have played the game that he did shortly after the attack. He confirmed what shouldn't have been confirmed. He emboldened these people, and now he will be forced to veto a bill in order to save his Presidency.
If he doesn't veto what he invited, he may well fail in his reelection bid. That is why I wrote as I did. The left can do whatever, but if Trump vetoes anything that comes down the pike, they will need 2/3rds of both houses in order to override. This isn't likely.
There was no reason to kowtow to people who only want to destroy you. They'll never be appeased. It was a mistake.
I don't criticize Trump very much. Hopefully, this wasn't what it appeared to be.
Instapundit » Blog Archive » CHRIS BUSKIRK: Everything They’re Telling You About Mass Shootings Is Wrong. “Allow me to propos… https://t.co/p4xlyLwUYJ— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 8, 2019
Thursday, August 8, 2019
Byron York: "Has anyone actually read the El Paso manifesto?"
Comment:
Yes, I did.
Basically, I'm going to let Byron York do the legwork on this one.
My impression is that the kid is nuts. Therefore, the blame is his. But wait! Loonies aren't held responsible. John Hinckley wasn't when he attempted to assassinate President Reagan. We are so "sensitive" these days.
Unfortunately, my sensitivity has run its course. Enough of this type of garbage. This should be discouraged so that copy cats will be strongly discouraged from trying it.
By the way, the kid admitted that he wouldn't have chosen Wal-Mart if it was a "hard target". He went for the "soft target". His words. Just what I have been trying to tell ya'll.
Now that we are assigning blame, and I've dealt with the conservative way, let's deal with the liberal way. York points out all of what the dude said, and 99% of it is liberalism. The other 1% may have some glancing association with Trump, but the kid said that his views preceded Trump.
So Trump can fire somebody, and the liberals can all resign. Works for me.
Yes, I did.
Basically, I'm going to let Byron York do the legwork on this one.
My impression is that the kid is nuts. Therefore, the blame is his. But wait! Loonies aren't held responsible. John Hinckley wasn't when he attempted to assassinate President Reagan. We are so "sensitive" these days.
Unfortunately, my sensitivity has run its course. Enough of this type of garbage. This should be discouraged so that copy cats will be strongly discouraged from trying it.
By the way, the kid admitted that he wouldn't have chosen Wal-Mart if it was a "hard target". He went for the "soft target". His words. Just what I have been trying to tell ya'll.
Now that we are assigning blame, and I've dealt with the conservative way, let's deal with the liberal way. York points out all of what the dude said, and 99% of it is liberalism. The other 1% may have some glancing association with Trump, but the kid said that his views preceded Trump.
So Trump can fire somebody, and the liberals can all resign. Works for me.
Has anyone actually read the El Paso manifesto? https://t.co/H0lpu0ZcCf— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 8, 2019
It's like Eddie Murphy getting arrested for getting thrown out the window
Comment:
But the truth here is stranger than fiction. Mitch McConnell did absolutely nothing to get death threats hurled at him, and here's Twitter banning him for mentioning it on their "platform".
But the truth here is stranger than fiction. Mitch McConnell did absolutely nothing to get death threats hurled at him, and here's Twitter banning him for mentioning it on their "platform".
Twitter Suspends Mitch McConnell Campaign Account for Sharing Death Threats Against Mitch McConnell... https://t.co/DeCNKAh0pM via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 8, 2019
Poetic justice
Comment:
Yes, it is a good thing to clean up such a mess. Even better since it annoys the plastic-banana, phony-baloney liberals.
I lift my glass to ya'll. Well done.
By the way, I don't see Trump taking a bow for this. Compare and contrast, if you dare.
Yes, it is a good thing to clean up such a mess. Even better since it annoys the plastic-banana, phony-baloney liberals.
I lift my glass to ya'll. Well done.
By the way, I don't see Trump taking a bow for this. Compare and contrast, if you dare.
Trump supporters cleaned up tons of trash and the Baltimore Sun is not happy about it (Update) https://t.co/cGJfjSE6Da— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 8, 2019
Mueller may have committed perjury
Updated,
8.8.19:
Comment:
A little more on this story via Instapundit.
Prosecution of the case "would likely be impossible", he says. In my opinion, there seems to be a huge disconnect between what's legal and what is true. The legal process seems to favor the one in the wrong all too often. It also doesn't always protect those who are in the right. Even the "rule of law" functioning at its best isn't perfect. Just think of what it is when it is at its worst. Then you get the likes of Mueller.
8.7.19:
Comment:
A judge was going to charge Mueller with contempt for his prejudicial rhetoric, and this forced him to hold the May news conference so that he could satisfy the judge, and to disavow what he had said previously. In the recent testimony before Congress, while under oath, Mueller denied that the judge's threat had anything to do with his change in rhetoric.
It doesn't surprise me.
8.8.19:
Comment:
A little more on this story via Instapundit.
Prosecution of the case "would likely be impossible", he says. In my opinion, there seems to be a huge disconnect between what's legal and what is true. The legal process seems to favor the one in the wrong all too often. It also doesn't always protect those who are in the right. Even the "rule of law" functioning at its best isn't perfect. Just think of what it is when it is at its worst. Then you get the likes of Mueller.
RCI: Mueller might have committed perjury in congressional testimony https://t.co/Wei9S3T6V6— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 8, 2019
8.7.19:
Comment:
A judge was going to charge Mueller with contempt for his prejudicial rhetoric, and this forced him to hold the May news conference so that he could satisfy the judge, and to disavow what he had said previously. In the recent testimony before Congress, while under oath, Mueller denied that the judge's threat had anything to do with his change in rhetoric.
It doesn't surprise me.
Mueller Tied to Double Deception: First in Court, Then Before Congress https://t.co/UJQVed322H— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 7, 2019
Wednesday, August 7, 2019
I'm Spartacus
Comment:
A left-wing member of Congress has doxxed private citizens in the lawful exercise of their civil rights. Of course, this is meant to intimidate these citizens into giving up their political views or to silence them. All this under the color of authority.
How is it any different from how these vanquished slaves were being intimidated into betraying their leader to a vengeful conqueror?
Yeah, it was just a movie. But what Castro did to these people was for real.
Cory Booker pretends to be Spartacus. But we've got some real ones.
Honor them!
A left-wing member of Congress has doxxed private citizens in the lawful exercise of their civil rights. Of course, this is meant to intimidate these citizens into giving up their political views or to silence them. All this under the color of authority.
How is it any different from how these vanquished slaves were being intimidated into betraying their leader to a vengeful conqueror?
Yeah, it was just a movie. But what Castro did to these people was for real.
Cory Booker pretends to be Spartacus. But we've got some real ones.
Honor them!
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Tough talk sometimes hard to listen to
Comment:
For a moment there, he sounded like a preacher. One of those kinds of preachers that make you feel like you want to crawl into a hole.
I'm not complaining. Sometimes, you need a little tough talk.
The guy was a cop and Secret Service agent. He knows what the "street" is like. This isn't some jive turkey flapping his gums out there.
He's doing a good job. We are lucky to have him.
By the way, liberals may THINK they are doing this, but they have no credibility. This guy has the creds.
For a moment there, he sounded like a preacher. One of those kinds of preachers that make you feel like you want to crawl into a hole.
I'm not complaining. Sometimes, you need a little tough talk.
The guy was a cop and Secret Service agent. He knows what the "street" is like. This isn't some jive turkey flapping his gums out there.
He's doing a good job. We are lucky to have him.
By the way, liberals may THINK they are doing this, but they have no credibility. This guy has the creds.
Shut-uppery has reared its ugly head again
Comment:
Do you remember this video from the Obama Era? Just because Obama is now gone that "shut-uppery" is dead? Now, if you were to criticize a black Congress-critter from Baltimore, well, you're a racist. Just another example of "shut up" as an argument. They have nothing else, comrade.
The recent mass "shoosting" is piled on only to amplify the tactic. Now, you MUST agree with them. Or else.
Do you remember this video from the Obama Era? Just because Obama is now gone that "shut-uppery" is dead? Now, if you were to criticize a black Congress-critter from Baltimore, well, you're a racist. Just another example of "shut up" as an argument. They have nothing else, comrade.
The recent mass "shoosting" is piled on only to amplify the tactic. Now, you MUST agree with them. Or else.
A passing thought or two
6:00 am:
Could this hyper-reaction to the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton be WORSE than what actually happened?
An example: The Reichstag Fire. As far as I know, nobody died in the Reichstag Fire, but one luckless man got the blame for it and was executed. All the same, the Fire itself was not that big of a deal, but the reaction allowed Hitler to consolidate his power.
Somebody may seize upon this as a minimalization of the death and carnage of the two events. Nope. What I am getting at is that this hyper-reaction to tragedy may make matters FAR WORSE.
I read through some of the President's remarks yesterday, and I am not encouraged. He is reacting, not pro-acting. This is not a good sign.
Also, all this talk about white supremacy and white nationalism is way the hell over the top. Where is the evidence of a conspiracy? Otherwise, it is the act of a lone wolf attacker. This isn't the time to start taking away the civil rights of people because of the act of a single man.
It is unfortunate that the response to this is to give in to the unreasoning and irrational rage mob that attempts to link anything bad that happens to Trump, and tries to gain political ground with it.
Daily updates:
9:45 am:
Actually, I got part of the way through the President's remarks before I stopped. Normally, I don't want to fly off the handle, I want to read it all and give it some thought before I start venting.
After reading it again, fully this time, I am still convinced that I have good reason to be concerned.
There was no conspiracy here. If there is evidence of one, then you can talk about things involving groups. With some evidence of a group's involvement, then these acts were acts of deranged lone wolves. Any actions taken thereof should only take those facts into consideration.
There is no reason to allow the race-baiting of certain politicians to infect the whole of the body politic.
There is no cause of action other than to identify these type of lone-wolf types and as much as is consistent with our laws, attempt to intervene before it is too late.
But there looks to be a worrisome trend to lump people together into groups as if there were a conspiracy. Mere political disagreement is not a cause for governmental action. It is actually forbidden by the First Amendment.
Yes, this reaction to a tragic event is an over-reaction. Hopefully, it doesn't go too far.
10:21 am:
Yes, and I don't want to over-react either! There is another way to look at this. Perhaps more on that later.
Here are a few stats to put it all into perspective:
Could this hyper-reaction to the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton be WORSE than what actually happened?
An example: The Reichstag Fire. As far as I know, nobody died in the Reichstag Fire, but one luckless man got the blame for it and was executed. All the same, the Fire itself was not that big of a deal, but the reaction allowed Hitler to consolidate his power.
Somebody may seize upon this as a minimalization of the death and carnage of the two events. Nope. What I am getting at is that this hyper-reaction to tragedy may make matters FAR WORSE.
I read through some of the President's remarks yesterday, and I am not encouraged. He is reacting, not pro-acting. This is not a good sign.
Also, all this talk about white supremacy and white nationalism is way the hell over the top. Where is the evidence of a conspiracy? Otherwise, it is the act of a lone wolf attacker. This isn't the time to start taking away the civil rights of people because of the act of a single man.
It is unfortunate that the response to this is to give in to the unreasoning and irrational rage mob that attempts to link anything bad that happens to Trump, and tries to gain political ground with it.
Daily updates:
9:45 am:
Actually, I got part of the way through the President's remarks before I stopped. Normally, I don't want to fly off the handle, I want to read it all and give it some thought before I start venting.
After reading it again, fully this time, I am still convinced that I have good reason to be concerned.
There was no conspiracy here. If there is evidence of one, then you can talk about things involving groups. With some evidence of a group's involvement, then these acts were acts of deranged lone wolves. Any actions taken thereof should only take those facts into consideration.
There is no reason to allow the race-baiting of certain politicians to infect the whole of the body politic.
There is no cause of action other than to identify these type of lone-wolf types and as much as is consistent with our laws, attempt to intervene before it is too late.
But there looks to be a worrisome trend to lump people together into groups as if there were a conspiracy. Mere political disagreement is not a cause for governmental action. It is actually forbidden by the First Amendment.
Yes, this reaction to a tragic event is an over-reaction. Hopefully, it doesn't go too far.
10:21 am:
Yes, and I don't want to over-react either! There is another way to look at this. Perhaps more on that later.
Here are a few stats to put it all into perspective:
U.S. deaths per day:— Raheem ‘the naughty nationalist’ Kassam (@RaheemKassam) August 5, 2019
Abortion: 1778
Heart disease: 1773
Cancer: 1641
Medical error: 685
Accident: 401
Stroke: 401
Alzheimers: 332
Diabetes: 228
Flu: 150
Suicide: 128
Opioid: 115
Drunk driving: 28
Underage drinking: 11
Teen texting-and-driving: 8
All Rifles: 1
Via @RealSaavedra
Monday, August 5, 2019
White woman speaks with forked tongue, kemosabe
Comments:
Pocahontas to the rescue! We are saved!
Pocahontas to the rescue! We are saved!
We need to call out white nationalism for what it is—domestic terrorism. It is a threat to the United States, and we've seen its devastating toll this weekend. And we need to call out the president himself for advancing racism and white supremacy. pic.twitter.com/pdE9CAiQqx— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 4, 2019
Dream Team Loses To Nobodies
Comment:
It is one way of putting it. I can put it another, but that would be too repetitive.
It is one way of putting it. I can put it another, but that would be too repetitive.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Mueller’s Dream Team Loses To The Nobodies…. https://t.co/d5uT6nEJuw— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 5, 2019
More evidence of Mueller's corruption
Comment:
Another in a long list of misdeeds with respect to the FBI counter-intel op against Trump. Furthermore, Sundance manages to throw in the corrupt nature of the Mueller Report, and how they lied to the public about their findings.
No comment about Trey Gowdy nor the video. This is about Sundance's work, which is first-rate. Wish I could say the same about Gowdy.
Gowdy strikes me as a poseur.
Another in a long list of misdeeds with respect to the FBI counter-intel op against Trump. Furthermore, Sundance manages to throw in the corrupt nature of the Mueller Report, and how they lied to the public about their findings.
No comment about Trey Gowdy nor the video. This is about Sundance's work, which is first-rate. Wish I could say the same about Gowdy.
Gowdy strikes me as a poseur.
Explosive Interview - Maria Bartiromo Drops Big News With Trey Gowdy.... https://t.co/08sZlZZ2pS via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 5, 2019
The Clinton Email Scandal May Not Be Over
Comment:
You have to read this in order to see the magnitude and the scope of corruption. Unbelievable.
Yet we are still talking about phantom BeeEss.
You have to read this in order to see the magnitude and the scope of corruption. Unbelievable.
Yet we are still talking about phantom BeeEss.
New Evidence Unveils Disturbing Facts About Hillary's Email Scandal https://t.co/VX9rmOodyB— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 5, 2019
The Media is not a sacred cow
Comment:
"You don't have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater."
Prager's site didn't say that, I've just added it to the mix, fwiw.
"You don't have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater."
Prager's site didn't say that, I've just added it to the mix, fwiw.
Did President Trump call neo-Nazis “very fine people” following the Charlottesville riots of August 2017?— PragerU (@prageru) August 5, 2019
The media reported that he did.
But what if their reporting is wrong—and what if they knew it?
CNN political analyst @CortesSteve investigates.https://t.co/t6rIEyheFH
Why doesn't the "self-help author" mention this instead of gun-control?
Comment:
Why I don't like fakes like Marianne Williamson. If she really wanted to help people, she would be talking like this.
She is not there to help but to be the predator. In other words, she is only there to exploit the gullible, who think by controlling the availability of guns, that they will be safer.
Why I don't like fakes like Marianne Williamson. If she really wanted to help people, she would be talking like this.
She is not there to help but to be the predator. In other words, she is only there to exploit the gullible, who think by controlling the availability of guns, that they will be safer.
Anatomy of an Assault: The 5-Step Attack Cycle https://t.co/AJPUgoN42T— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 5, 2019
Why no one trusts the Mainstream Media.
Comment:
The problem goes much deeper than even this. There is an enormous amount of control of the media by just a few big corporations.
It is fair to regulate corporations, in my opinion. That is because the government creates corporations, and therefore the public has an interest in their behavior. If the corporations are going to sponsor irresponsible reporting, then they should be held accountable.
First Amendment applies only to private individuals and organizations. If a publicly held corporation steps out of line, the First Amendment should not be a factor in regulating them, in my opinion.
By the way, when Attkisson uses the words "no one ", she should qualify that. Evidently, there are plenty of people being taken in by the media, or otherwise, there would be no problem.
The problem goes much deeper than even this. There is an enormous amount of control of the media by just a few big corporations.
It is fair to regulate corporations, in my opinion. That is because the government creates corporations, and therefore the public has an interest in their behavior. If the corporations are going to sponsor irresponsible reporting, then they should be held accountable.
First Amendment applies only to private individuals and organizations. If a publicly held corporation steps out of line, the First Amendment should not be a factor in regulating them, in my opinion.
By the way, when Attkisson uses the words "no one ", she should qualify that. Evidently, there are plenty of people being taken in by the media, or otherwise, there would be no problem.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
A mass shooting happens, and the same reactions as always
This is in reference to some left-wing sites. For example, I went to the Memeorandum site in order to get a flavor of how the mass shootings were being covered.
Right off the top, I'd say that any serious news outlet would not let a lot of this stuff get attention.
I looked up the phrase "non-sequitur". Indeed, for that is what passes for left-wing expression these days. The thought came to mind.
There can be such a thing as cause and effect for something like this, but only if there is a direct connection between one and the other. In other words, for A to be responsible for B's actions, A would have to have had some direct association with B in the planning of the deed in fact. If Trump is to be responsible then, then he would have had to personally direct this guy to do what he did. Otherwise, how can one assess responsibility?
Could Trump be held responsible for the things he says? If he is held responsible for anything like that, then why aren't a whole lot of other people responsible too? One basic non-sequitur is to say that Trump's criticism of Rep Cummings was somehow responsible for this. It is a bit tortuous to even attempt to unravel that chain of thought. I think I'll pass. For those who wish to make it their argument, then explain yourselves.
One can vainly hope that pubic discussion can focus in on possible solutions to this type of crime.
One suggestion that I've made is to hold big box retailers and/or any other establishment that hosts this many people, responsible for justifying their gun-free policies. If they are going to invite people into their establishments with such a policy, they should take responsibility for the security of the place. Otherwise, they should be held liable for lawsuits, should the victims or survivors seek that remedy. I think people have a right to expect that gun-free establishments justify why they think that their way of handling security is adequate in sufficient number of cases.
Not all crimes can be foreseen. But reasonable measures could be taken that would discourage such attacks in the future. However, if a truly determined perpetrator wants to badly enough, even these may prove insufficient.
There is a pattern here. These guys tend to attack people in crowded places, and in which people are unarmed. If these guys went after a police station, it might be an eye opener. Hardened targets, therefore, are safer than soft ones. Gun-control does not address this basic motivation. It may actually encourage more of the same.
But I suppose that would make too much sense. We'll get the usual nonsense, and little real prospect of change for the better.
Right off the top, I'd say that any serious news outlet would not let a lot of this stuff get attention.
I looked up the phrase "non-sequitur". Indeed, for that is what passes for left-wing expression these days. The thought came to mind.
There can be such a thing as cause and effect for something like this, but only if there is a direct connection between one and the other. In other words, for A to be responsible for B's actions, A would have to have had some direct association with B in the planning of the deed in fact. If Trump is to be responsible then, then he would have had to personally direct this guy to do what he did. Otherwise, how can one assess responsibility?
Could Trump be held responsible for the things he says? If he is held responsible for anything like that, then why aren't a whole lot of other people responsible too? One basic non-sequitur is to say that Trump's criticism of Rep Cummings was somehow responsible for this. It is a bit tortuous to even attempt to unravel that chain of thought. I think I'll pass. For those who wish to make it their argument, then explain yourselves.
One can vainly hope that pubic discussion can focus in on possible solutions to this type of crime.
One suggestion that I've made is to hold big box retailers and/or any other establishment that hosts this many people, responsible for justifying their gun-free policies. If they are going to invite people into their establishments with such a policy, they should take responsibility for the security of the place. Otherwise, they should be held liable for lawsuits, should the victims or survivors seek that remedy. I think people have a right to expect that gun-free establishments justify why they think that their way of handling security is adequate in sufficient number of cases.
Not all crimes can be foreseen. But reasonable measures could be taken that would discourage such attacks in the future. However, if a truly determined perpetrator wants to badly enough, even these may prove insufficient.
There is a pattern here. These guys tend to attack people in crowded places, and in which people are unarmed. If these guys went after a police station, it might be an eye opener. Hardened targets, therefore, are safer than soft ones. Gun-control does not address this basic motivation. It may actually encourage more of the same.
But I suppose that would make too much sense. We'll get the usual nonsense, and little real prospect of change for the better.
Probably not a well-known fact about the Vietnam War
Comment:
But maybe the reason I think it is not well known is that I didn't know it.
But maybe the reason I think it is not well known is that I didn't know it.
Liberals are the new Nazis
The left likes to call conservatives nazis. But the truth of the matter is that is what they are.
How?
Look at the results of what Hitler did. Then go back and ask why there was nobody there to do anything to stop him.
One of the first things that Hitler did was to DISARM the German people. After that, they were completely at his mercy and power.
That same will happen here if the liberals get their way. First, they will disarm the public. Then, that will leave any power-mad demagogue completely unchecked. The public will be completely at the mercy of the all-powerful state.
But the Nazis were EEEEEVEEEL. Sure they were. But what enabled the evil? It is the same kind of hyper-reliance upon the state so that the people cannot take care of themselves. Part of what enables a person to take care of himself/herself is the ability to defend oneself. A firearm can do that.
Letting the state monopolize the possession of firearms will guarantee that a future tyrant will arise, and who could start global wars and genocides. It happened with Hitler. Why wouldn't it happen here? Who would be there to prevent it?
For that reason, the liberals may denounce their opposition as "nazis", but when it comes to history, ie. results, they are a lot more like nazis themselves.
How?
Look at the results of what Hitler did. Then go back and ask why there was nobody there to do anything to stop him.
One of the first things that Hitler did was to DISARM the German people. After that, they were completely at his mercy and power.
That same will happen here if the liberals get their way. First, they will disarm the public. Then, that will leave any power-mad demagogue completely unchecked. The public will be completely at the mercy of the all-powerful state.
But the Nazis were EEEEEVEEEL. Sure they were. But what enabled the evil? It is the same kind of hyper-reliance upon the state so that the people cannot take care of themselves. Part of what enables a person to take care of himself/herself is the ability to defend oneself. A firearm can do that.
Letting the state monopolize the possession of firearms will guarantee that a future tyrant will arise, and who could start global wars and genocides. It happened with Hitler. Why wouldn't it happen here? Who would be there to prevent it?
For that reason, the liberals may denounce their opposition as "nazis", but when it comes to history, ie. results, they are a lot more like nazis themselves.
Killing mosquitoes with simple devices
Comment:
It seems ingenious. Maybe I'll try it here because mosquitoes can be rotten in this place.
It seems ingenious. Maybe I'll try it here because mosquitoes can be rotten in this place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)