Friday, April 20, 2018

All We Are Saying Is Give Trump a Chance

Magnificent
North Korea has agreed to suspend all Nuclear Tests and close up a major test site. This is very good news for North Korea and the World - big progress! Look forward to our Summit.

                                                                       ......
He did it, Dad. He said he would, and he did.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Starbucks' PROMISE Program: Free Coffee, Anyone?


“Ninety-nine percent of the time whites were in no physical danger whatsoever during mau-mauing. The brothers understood through and through that it was a tactic, a procedure, a game. If you actually hurt or endangered somebody at one of these sessions, you were only cutting yourself off from whatever was being handed out, the jobs, the money, the influence. The idea was to terrify but don’t touch. The term mau-mauing itself expressed this game-like quality. It expressed the put-on side of it. In public you used the same term the whites used, namely, “confrontation.” The term mau-mauing was a source of amusement in private. The term mau-mauing said, ‘The white man has a voodoo fear of us, because deep down he still thinks we’re savages. Right? So we’re going to do that Savage number for him.’ It was like a practical joke at the expense of the white man’s superstitiousness.
Some of the main heroes in the ghetto, on a par with the Panthers even, were the Blackstone Rangers in Chicago. The Rangers were so bad, the Rangers so terrified the whole youth welfare poverty establishment, that in one year, 1968, they got a $937,000 grant from the Office of Economic Opportunity in Washington. The Ranger leaders became job counselors in the manpower training project, even though most of them never had a job before and weren’t about to be looking for one. … In San Francisco the champions were the Mission Rebels. The Rebels got every kind of grant you could think of, from the government, the foundations, the churches, individual sugar daddies, from everywhere, plus a headquarters building and poverty jobs all over the place.
The police would argue that in giving all that money to gangs like the Blackstone Rangers the poverty bureaucrats were financing criminal elements and helping to destroy the community. The poverty bureaucrats would argue that they were doing just the opposite. They were bringing the gangs into the system.”
--Tom Wolfe, "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers", 1970

That was a half-century ago. And today, the burning Civil Rights Issue of Our Time is...Squatter's Rights at Starbucks?

CEO Howard Schulz threw his own employees under the bus in a Virtue-Signaling Tour de Farce. I wonder--is his bathroom at Corporate Headquarters open to the public?

He went on national tv--well, CBS, anyway--and called his own employees racists simply for following corporate policy and common sense in dealing with hell-raising non-customers who resisted polite requests by both management and then police. For their breach of the peace, they are now being richly rewarded, just as Obama's PROMISE Program rewarded student criminals with disastrous results.

You know, an enterprising lawyer could help bring a suit on behalf of the ex-manager for wrongful termination and public defamation.

Aside from the odious racialist indoctrination imposed on his employees, Starbucks will in all likelihood be funding Black Lies Matter soon. And the entire event smells suspiciously like a staged piece of Race Hustler Agit-Prop. What a disgrace.

'Screaming'? You damn right I'm screaming! That's cos' I figured out if I keep screaming, your boss will throw you under the bus. He's gonna' give us money. He's gonna' apologize. He's gonna' give us company stock, send us to Harvard, make us corporate vice-presidents and set us up with a real estate office where we probably won't let bums use the bathroom, either.  He's gonna' buy us a pony and give us free ice cream. I'll have the Caramel Frappuccino. With that drizzle stuff. And hurry it up!

#That'sHowYouGetMore!

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

First Lady Barbara Bush

A Lady First
Rest in Peace

CNN and Comey: Professional Liars

CNN, The Tater/Tapper Revenge Porn Network and Disgraced Dirty Cop Comey Collude Together

The Comey/CNN Talking Point is that the president admitted to Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of RUSSIA!

That is a lie. See for yourself.

The president said there was no good time to fire Comey because the Democrats were consumed by Russia fever--NOT that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

In fact, he said the exact opposite:

TRUMP: Look, he's a showboat. He's a grandstander. ...

HOLT: Were you...angry with Mr. Comey because of his Russia investigation?

TRUMP: I just want somebody that's competent. I am a big fan of the FBI. I love the FBI.

HOLT: But were you a fan of...him taking up that investigation?...the Russian investigation and possible links between...

TRUMP: No, I don't care...

TRUMP:
Look -- look, let me tell you. As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly."

Liars.

Saturday, April 14, 2018

Thank You Military Service Members for Protecting Our Freedom in Syria

"In the end, it all comes down to leadership. That is what this country is looking for now. It was leadership here at home that gave us strong American influence abroad and the collapse of imperial Communism. Great nations have responsibilities to lead, and we should always be cautious of those who would lower our profile because they might just wind up lowering our flag."--Pres. Ronald Reagan, in his last major public address, 1994



Military.com: Navy Vessels, B-1s Obliterate 3 Syrian Targets in Strike

"It was all over in two minutes.
U.S., French and British forces hit three suspected Syrian chemical weapons facilities with a total of 105 weapons that all struck their targets within two minutes at about 4 a.m. local time, Pentagon officials said Saturday.
"Could not have had a better result -- Mission Accomplished!" President Donald Trump said in a Tweet early Saturday.
The attack involved ships, aircraft and one submarine operating from the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and the Northern Arabian Sea against three targets -- one on the outskirts of Damascus and two others 90 miles to the north.
A total of 76 missiles -- 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMS) and 19 Joint Air to Surface Stand-Off Missiles-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) were fired at the sprawling Barzah Research and Development Center near Damascus, Marine Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the Joint Staff Director, said at a Pentagon briefing.
At the same precise time, the Hims-Shinsar chemical weapons storage facility near Homs, about 90 miles north of Damascus, was hit with a total of 22 weapons -- nine Tomahawks, eight British Storm Shadow missiles, three French Naval Cruise Missiles and two French SCALP land attack cruise missiles, McKenzie said.
The third target, the Hims--Shinsar chemical weapons bunker facility also near Homs, was hit with seven French SCALP missiles, McKenzie said.
In the Red Sea, the Ticonderoga-class cruiser Monterey fired 30 Tomahawks and the Arleigh
Burke-class destroyer Laboon fired seven TLAMs.
In the North Arabian Sea, the Arleigh Burke- class destroyer Higgins fired 23 TLAMS, McKenzie said.
In the eastern Mediterranean, the French frigate Languedoc fired three naval versions of the SCALP missile and the Virginia-class submarine John Warner fired six TLAMs.
In the air, two B-1B Lancer Bombers fired 19 JASSMs. Britain flew a combination of Tornado and Typhoon fighters to launch eight Storm Shadow missiles. France flew a combination of Rafale and Mirage fighters to launch a total of nine SCALP missiles. ...B-1 pilots and crew members told Military.com they were training round-the-clock for the evolving battlespace in the Middle East."

The President:

"The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children, thrashing in pain and gasping for air. These are not the actions of a man; they are crimes of a monster instead.
Following the horrors of World War I a century ago, civilized nations joined together to ban chemical warfare. Chemical weapons are uniquely dangerous not only because they inflict gruesome suffering, but because even small amounts can unleash widespread devastation. The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread, and use of chemical weapons. Establishing this deterrent is a vital national security interest of the United States. The combined American, British, and French response to these atrocities will integrate all instruments of our national power -- military, economic, and diplomatic. We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents. ...
 
Looking around our very troubled world, Americans have no illusions. We cannot purge the world of evil, or act everywhere there is tyranny.
No amount of American blood or treasure can produce lasting peace and security in the Middle East. It’s a troubled place. We will try to make it better, but it is a troubled place. The United States will be a partner and a friend, but the fate of the region lies in the hands of its own people.
In the last century, we looked straight into the darkest places of the human soul. We saw the anguish that can be unleashed and the evil that can take hold. By the end of the World War I, more than one million people had been killed or injured by chemical weapons. We never want to see that ghastly specter return.
So today, the nations of Britain, France, and the United States of America have marshaled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality.
Tonight, I ask all Americans to say a prayer for our noble warriors and our allies as they carry out their missions.".......
 
President Trump is quite right; we cannot allow the use of chemical weapon to be normalized. That is in our own national interest, as well as for civilization at large.


Thanks to all soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, all our defense workers and our allies. Also, thanks go to our intelligence services; it's great to see them focused on defending freedom again and not on criminally wiretapping the president to fix an election.

And a big shout-out to all the troops already in the Sandbox.

We owe you. Forever.

Friday, April 13, 2018

The Good News

Psalm 144 New International Version (NIV)

Psalm 144

Of David.

Praise be to the Lord my Rock,
    who trains my hands for war,
    my fingers for battle.
He is my loving God and my fortress,
    my stronghold and my deliverer,
my shield, in whom I take refuge,
    who subdues peoples[a] under me.
Lord, what are human beings that you care for them,
    mere mortals that you think of them?
They are like a breath;
    their days are like a fleeting shadow.
Part your heavens, Lord, and come down;
    touch the mountains, so that they smoke.
Send forth lightning and scatter the enemy;
    shoot your arrows and rout them.
Reach down your hand from on high;
    deliver me and rescue me
from the mighty waters,
    from the hands of foreigners
whose mouths are full of lies,
    whose right hands are deceitful.
I will sing a new song to you, my God;
    on the ten-stringed lyre I will make music to you,
10 to the One who gives victory to kings,
    who delivers his servant David.
From the deadly sword 11 deliver me;
    rescue me from the hands of foreigners
whose mouths are full of lies,
    whose right hands are deceitful.
12 Then our sons in their youth
    will be like well-nurtured plants,
and our daughters will be like pillars
    carved to adorn a palace.
13 Our barns will be filled
    with every kind of provision.
Our sheep will increase by thousands,
    by tens of thousands in our fields;
14     our oxen will draw heavy loads.[b]
There will be no breaching of walls,
    no going into captivity,
    no cry of distress in our streets.
15 Blessed is the people of whom this is true;
    blessed is the people whose God is the Lord.
 
In Jesus' Mighty Name we receive it, Heavenly Father, Amen and amen!

Charlton Heston and America's First Freedom

"If You Can Keep It"


Why We Have Guns” by Charlton Heston, National Press Club, September 11, 1997
 
“Today, I want to talk to you about guns: why we have them, why the Bill of Rights guarantees that we can have them, and why my right to have a gun is more important than your right to rail against it in the press.
I believe every good journalist needs to know why the Second Amendment must be considered more essential than the First Amendment. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the right to keep and bear arms is not archaic. It’s not an outdated, dusty idea some old dead white guys dreamed up in fear of the Redcoats. No. It’s just as essential to liberty today as it was in 1776.
These words may not play well at the Press Club, but it’s still the gospel down at the corner bar and grill. And your efforts to undermine the Second Amendment—to deride it and denigrate it, to degrade it, to readily accept diluting it and eagerly promote redefining it—threaten not only the physical well-being of millions of Americans but also the core concept of individual liberty our Founding Fathers struggled to perfect and protect.
So now you know what doubtless does not surprise you. I believe strongly in the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, for what I think are good reasons.
The original amendments we refer to as the Bill of Rights contain ten of what the Constitutional framers termed unalienable rights. These rights are ranked in random order and are linked by their essential equality. The Bill of Rights came to us with blinders on it. It doesn’t recognize color or class or wealth. It protects not just the rights of actors or editors or reporters, but extends even to those we love to hate. That’s why the most heinous criminals have rights until they are convicted of a crime.
The beauty of the Constitution can be found in the way it takes human nature into consideration. We are not a docile species capable of co-existing within a perfect society under everlasting benevolent rule.
We are what we are: egotistical, corruptible, vengeful; sometimes even a bit power-mad. The Bill of Rights recognizes this and builds the barricades that need to be in place to protect the individual.
You, of course, remain zealous in your belief that a free nation must have a free press and free speech to battle injustice, unmask corruption, and provide a voice for those in need of a fair and impartial forum.
I agree--wholeheartedly--a free press is vital to a free society. But I wonder: How many of you will agree with me that the right to keep and bear arms is not just equally vital, but the most vital to protect all the other rights we enjoy?
I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America’s First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows ‘rights’ to exist at all.
Now, either you believe that, or you don’t, and you must decide. Because there is no such thing as a free nation where police and military are allowed the force of arms but individual citizens are not. That’s a ‘Big Brother knows best’ theater of the absurd that has never boded well for the peasant class, the working class, or even for reporters.
Yes, our Constitution provides the doorway for your news and commentary to pass through free and unfettered.  But that doorway to freedom is framed by the muskets that stood between a vision of liberty and absolute anarchy at a place called Concord Bridge. Our Revolution began when the British sent Redcoats door to door to confiscate the people’s guns. They didn’t succeed; the muskets went out the back door with their owners.

Emerson said it best:
 
‘By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.’

King George called us ‘rabble-rousers, rabble in arms.’ But with God’s grace, George Washington and many brave men gave us our country. Soon after, God’s grace and a few great men gave us our Constitution. It’s been said that the creation of the United States is the greatest political act in history. I’ll sign that.
In the next two centuries, though, freedom did not flourish.The next Revolution, the French, collapsed in bloody Terror, followed by Napoleon’s tyranny. There’s been no shortage of dictators since, in many countries: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot. All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then literally soaking the earth with the blood of tens and tens of millions of their people. Ah, the joys of gun control!
Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder. Yet, in essence, that is what you have asked our loved ones to do, through the ill-contrived and totally naïve campaign against the Second Amendment.
Besides, how can we entrust to you the Second Amendment when you are so stingy with your own First Amendment?  I say this because of the way, in recent days, you have treated your own—those journalists you consider the least among you. How quick you’ve been to finger the paparazzi with blame and to eye the tabloids with disdain.  How eager you’ve been to draw a line where there is none, to demand some distinction within the First Amendment that sneers, ‘They are not one of us!’  How readily you let your lesser brethren take the fall, as if their rights were not as worthy, and their purpose not as pure, and their freedom not as sacred as yours!
So now, as politicians consider new laws to shackle and gag paparazzi, who among you will speak out?  Who here will stand and defend them? Well, if you won’t, I will.  Because you do not define the First Amendment; it defines you. And it is bigger than you.  Big enough to embrace all of you, plus all of those you would exclude. That’s how freedom works.
It also demands you do your homework. Again and again, I hear gun owners say, ‘How can we believe anything that anti-gun media says when they cannot even get the facts right?’ For too long you’ve swallowed manufactured statistics and fabricated technical support from anti-gun organizations that wouldn’t know a semi-auto from a sharp stick. And it shows. You fall for it every time.
That’s why you have very little credibility among 70 million gun owners and 20 million hunters and many millions of veterans who learned the hard way which end the bullet comes out. And while you attacked the amendment that defends your homes and protects your spouses and children, you have denied those of us who defend all the Bill of Rights a fair hearing or the courtesy of an honest debate.
If the NRA attempts to challenge your assertions, we are ignored. And if we try to buy advertising time or space to answer your charges, more often than not we are denied. How’s that for First Amendment freedom?
Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a weapon—not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well. In doing so, you promoted your profession to that of Constitutional judge and jury, more powerful even than our Supreme Court, more prejudiced than the Inquisition’s tribunals. It’s a frightening misuse of Constitutional right, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed.
As a veteran of World War Two, as a freedom marcher who stood with Dr. Martin Luther King long before it was fashionable, and as a grandfather who wants the coming century to be free and full of promise for my grandchildren, I am troubled.
The right to keep and bear arms is threatened by political theatrics, piecemeal lawmaking, talk-show psychology, extreme bad taste in the entertainment industry, an ever-widening educational chasm in our schools, and a conniving media that all add up to cultural warfare against the idea that guns ever had, or should now have, an honorable and proud place in our society.
But all of our rights must be delivered into the 21st century as pure and complete as they came to us at the beginning of this century. Traditionally, the passing of that torch is from a gnarled old hand down to an eager young one.  So now, at 72, I offer my gnarled old hand.
I’ve accepted a call from the National Rifle Association of America to help protect the Second Amendment. I feel it is my duty to do that. My mission and vision can be summarized in three simple parts:
First, before we enter the next century, I expect to see a pro-Second Amendment president in the White House.

Secondly, I expect to build an NRA with the political muscle and clout to keep a pro-Second Amendment Congress in place.
Third is a promise to the next generation of free Americans: I hope to help raise a hundred million dollars for NRA programs and education before the year 2000; at least half of that sum will go to teach American kids what the right to keep and bear arms really means to their culture and country.
We’ve raised a generation of young people who think that the Bill of Rights comes with their cable TV. Leave them to their channel surfing and they’ll remain oblivious to history and heritage that truly matter.
Think about it: What else must young Americans think when the White House proclaims, as it did, that ‘a firearm in the hands of youth is a crime or an accident waiting to happen’? No. It’s time they learned that firearm ownership is Constitutional, not criminal.  In fact, few pursuits can teach a young person more about responsibility, safety, conservation, their history, and their heritage all at once.
It’s time they found out that the politically-correct doctrine of today has misled them, and that, when they reach legal age, if they do not break our laws, they have a right to choose to own a gun—a handgun, a long gun, a small gun, a large gun, a black gun, a purple gun, a pretty gun, an ugly gun—and to use that gun to defend themselves and their loved ones or to engage in any lawful purpose they desire without apology or explanation to anyone, ever.



This is their first freedom. If you say it’s outdated, then you haven’t read your own headlines. If you say guns are destroying our society, I would answer that you know better. Declining morals, disintegrating families, vacillating political leadership, an eroding criminal justice system, and social mores that blur right and wrong are more to blame—certainly more than any legally owned firearm.
I want to rescue the Second Amendment from an opportunistic president and from a press that apparently can’t comprehend that attacks on the Second Amendment set the stage for assaults on the First.
I want to save the Second Amendment from all these nitpicking little wars of attrition—fights over alleged Saturday-Night Specials, plastic guns, cop-killer bullets, and so many other made-for-prime-time non-issues invented by some press agent over at Gun Control Headquarters—that you guys buy time and again.
I simply cannot stand and watch a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States come apart, under attack from those who either can’t understand it, don’t like the sound of it, or find themselves too philosophically squeamish to see why it remains the first among equals: Because it is the right we turn to when all else fails!
That’s why the Second Amendment is America’s First Freedom.
Please, go forth and tell the truth. There can be no free speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom to protest, no freedom to worship your God, no freedom to speak your mind, no freedom from fear, no freedom for your children and for theirs, for anybody, anywhere, without the Second Amendment freedom to fight for it.
If you don’t believe me, just turn on the news tonight. Civilization’s veneer is wearing thinner all the time. Thank you.”.......
.......
"History of the United States" (1860):

"...Pitcairn rode in front, and when within five or six rods of the minute men, cried out: ‘Disperse, ye villains, ye rebels, disperse; lay down your arms; why don't you lay down your arms and disperse?’ The main part of the countrymen stood motionless in the ranks, witnesses against aggression; too few to resist, too brave to fly. At this Pitcairn discharged a pistol, and with a loud voice cried, ‘Fire.’ The order was instantly followed, first by a few guns, which did no execution, and then by a heavy, close, and deadly discharge of musketry.

In the disparity of numbers, the common was a field of murder, not of battle; Parker, therefore, ordered his men to disperse. Then, and not till then, did a few of them, on their own impulse, return the British fire. These random shots of fugitives or dying men did no harm, except that Pitcairn's horse was perhaps grazed, and a private of the tenth light infantry was touched slightly in the leg.

Jonas Parker, the strongest and best wrestler in Lexington, had promised never to run from British troops; and he kept his vow. A wound brought him on his knees. Having discharged his gun, he was preparing to load it again, when as sound a heart as ever throbbed for freedom was stilled by a bayonet, and he lay on the post which he took at the morning's drum beat. So fell Isaac Muzzey, and so died the aged Robert Munroe, the same who in 1758 had been an ensign at Louisburg. Jonathan Harrington, junior, was struck in front of his own house on the north of the common. His wife was at the window as he fell. With the blood gushing from his breast, he rose in her sight, tottered, fell again, then crawled on hands and knees towards his dwelling; she ran to meet him, but only reached him as he expired on their threshold. Caleb Harrington, who had gone into the meeting-house for powder, was shot as he came out. Samuel Hadley and John Brown were pursued, and killed after they had left the green. Asahel Porter, of Woburn, who had been taken prisoner by the British on the march, endeavoring to escape, was shot within a few rods of the common.

Day came in all the beauty of an early spring. The trees were budding; the grass growing rankly a full month before its time; the blue bird and the robin gladdening the genial season, and calling forth the beams of the sun which on that morning shone with the warmth of summer; but distress and horror gathered over the inhabitants of the peaceful town. There on the green, lay in death the gray-haired and the young; the grassy field was red ‘with the innocent blood of their brethren slain,’ crying unto God for vengeance from the ground."--George Bancrofthistorian & founder of the Naval Academy, describes the Battle on Lexington Green, where 70-some Minute Men--ordinary citizens, really--faced 700 British Regulars on Apr. 19. 1775.

This is the gun confiscation event on which your country was founded.

And human nature has changed not a whit in the centuries since.

cdrsalamander @cdrsalamander Mar 29 Teenage activists help collect and destroy dangerous assault weapons in a city. Such weapons are only good for killing. No reason for any civilian to own them. These things should only be owned by military and police.



And from 1919:
We're told that the young gun-confiscators of today are like the Civil Rights marchers of yesterday--but they're trying not to add, but to subtract from the Bill of Rights.

That's not Civil Rights. That's just bad math. #AllTenAmendments.

All means all.
 

The Banner O'er Orban

Can You Spot the Real Kakistocracy?


Brennan voted for the cops. The suspect is now the Prime Minister of Hungary.

Friday, April 6, 2018

Twitter: "We're So Arrogant, We're Even Shadow-Banning Sitting U.S. Senators!"

Before the Fall

Jim Geraghty:

"There’s a contention that Twitter “shadow bans” certain accounts it doesn’t like based on user reports and algorithms. The company won’t tell you if you’re in this quasi-detention and your account won’t be suspended; your tweets just won’t show up in the feeds of certain people. You’ll be walled off from the rest of Twitter, kept in a limited realm of existing followers who aren’t bothered by you.

To test this, I decided to compare two of the higher-profile members of the U.S. Senate.

Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz has more than 3.2 million followers. You would figure that almost every tweet he wrote would get a significant reaction. And yet, as you scroll through his feed, you find most tweets he writes have, collectively, a few hundred retweets and likes at most. Just in the last few days: 259 retweets, 90 retweets, 62 retweets. Cruz’s most retweeted item in the past few days appears to have been retweeted 416 times.

California Democratic Senator Kamala Harris has 1.5 million followers, roughly half that of Cruz. But almost all of her tweets are shared at a rate three to four times, sometimes as much as forty times, as much as Cruz’s. Her most recent tweets have been retweeted 1,800 times, 1,300 times, 981 times, and 4,000 times.
Is it just that Harris’ tweets are so much more interesting? Are her followers, constituents, and fans so much more likely to share her tweets, compared to his? Are conservatives just less likely to retweet something than liberals are?

Or are some of Cruz’s followers just not seeing his tweets?
Remember, a Twitter contractor managed to shut down the president’s account for eleven minutes...ask managers of social media networks — do your companies’ policies or algorithms ever limit a user’s audience and reach without informing them? And what is the criteria for this sort of secret semi-ban?".......

The criteria is "'Shut-up', they explained."

Meanwhile, Facebook is also shadow-banning and censoring conservatives.

Also spying on everyone and selling it to the highest bidder, whether the Obama Campaign or Cambridge Analytica.

Also failing to inform users that the Dark Web was accessing their info.

Also going after your medical records.

For starters, the law should mandate that all default settings be "opt-in", not "opt-out".

Sherman Act Anti-Trust action is long overdue--if not the RICO Act.
"I believe that monopolies, unjust discriminations, which prevent or cripple competition, fraudulent overcapitalization, and other evils in trust organizations and practices which injuriously affect interstate trade can be prevented under the power of the Congress..."--President Theodore Roosevelt, State of the Union, 1902

Arrogance--UPDATE:

Facebook to Diamond and Silk:“The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community. This decision is final and it is not appealable in any way.”

Twitter CEO Shares And Raves About Article Calling For Dem Victory In Second ‘Civil War’
 The article recommends One Party-Rule because California's works so well. California has a third of the nation's welfare cases and runs Mexico's prison system for them. Twitter's CEO recommends the article, even as Twitter is shadow-banning sitting Republican senators.

Question: Isn't it fraud to lure users by offering them an open platform while secretly shadow-banning them?

And isn't it fraud to sell ads to advertisers without telling them that you are banning a class of your own users because you don't like their politics?

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Wiretapping King, Wiretapping Trump

A New Birth of Freedom





Via Notes From the Cuban Exile Quarter, John Suarez Russia's secret war against Martin Luther King Jr.

"...Many are aware of the FBI wiretapping Martin Luther King Jr., monitoring of the Civil Rights Movement, and active measures against him but not of the campaign waged against the civil rights leader by Soviet intelligence, also known as the KGB.

What motivated the KGB to work to destroy Reverend King?

Martin Luther King Jr. in his 1967 speech
Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence came out against the war, but also to double down on his rejection of revolutionary violence in the United States, stating that, "[a]s I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems." KGB wanted violence to erupt in the United States and viewed the civil rights leader as an obstacle.

Reverend King in his 1958 book
Stride to Freedom summed up his views on Marxism and rejected it for the following reasons:

The Challenge of Marxism
During the Christmas holidays of 1949 I decided to spend my spare time reading Karl Marx to try to understand the appeal of communism for many people. For the first time I carefully scrutinized Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. I also read some interpretive works on the thinking of Marx and Lenin. In reading such Communist writings I drew certain conclusions that have remained with me to this day.
First I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God.4 This I could never accept, for as a Christian I believe that there is a creative personal power in this universe who is the ground and essence of all reality—a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter.
Second, I strongly disagreed with communism’s ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything—force, violence, murder, lying—is a justifiable means to the “millennial” end.5 This type of relativism was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the mean.
Third, I opposed communism’s political totalitarianism. In communism the individual ends up in subjection to the state. True, the Marxist would argue that the state is an “interim” reality which is to be eliminated when the classless society emerges; but the state is the end while it lasts, and man only a means to that end. And if any man’s so-called rights or liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of the state.
This deprecation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as a means to the end of the state, but always as an end within himself.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a radical in the sense that he was going to the root of things, and seeking solutions informed by his Christian faith. Reverend King was a Christian Democrat who sought to narrow the gap between the wealthy and the poor with a politics focused on the person because "he is a child of God."

In 1967, King
offered a strategic approach to confront communism by promoting democracy and pursuing just policies that alleviate evils in the world...
"America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.  This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. [applause] War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy [applause], realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops."
Taylor Branch, in the third book of his trilogy on Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement, At Canaan's Edge wrote about the Reverend's views on the militant call to armed struggle in the streets of the United States in January of 1968.
“Riots just don’t pay off,” said King. He pronounced them an objective failure beyond morals or faith. “For if we say that power is the ability to effect change, or the ability to achieve purpose,” he said, “then it is not powerful to engage in an act that does not do that–no matter how loud you are, and no matter how much you burn.” Likewise, he exhorted the staff to combat the “romantic illusion” of guerrilla warfare in the style of Che Guevara. ... “We must not be intimidated by those who are laughing at nonviolence now.”
Reverend King remained true to his non-violent convictions, rejected communism, and took unpopular positions to do so. These are the reasons why the KGB wanted him out of the way. This should not be surprising. What is surprising is that the FBI also wanted him out of the way.
Soviet KGB engaged in campaigns against Martin Luther King Jr.

...University of Cambridge professor Christopher Andrew, who coauthored The Sword and the Shield with Vasili Mitrokhin was interviewed by Charlie Rose on PBS on September 28, 1999 about the book and towards the end of the interview discussed how the Soviets celebrated when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by James Earl Ray. Other Soviet archives documented efforts by the Soviet Union to stimulate and activate the Black Panthers in their struggle against the United States government.

Fifty years later and the Russians are still
seeking to stoke racial divisions in the United States in order to provoke and promote violence. Half a century ago, they viewed Martin Luther King Jr., as an obstacle and celebrated in Moscow when the civil rights leader was assassinated.".......

The FBI wiretapped and tried to frame both Martin Luther King and Donald J. Trump.

And the vitriol aimed at King by the Establishment then matches the hate spewed by the Deep State at President Trump today.

Rev. King was too radical for Hoover and not radical enough for the Kremlin. President Trump, too radically patriotic for both Obama and the Kremlin. King sought to bring minority citizens into the mainstream of American life, praise God, whereas Trump's crime is bringing Mainstream America back to her citizens, returning power to her People. It's just not done, you see.

Rev. King thought Communism was fueled by poverty. Perhaps at the margins--but Communism isn't caused by poverty any more than terrorism. Indeed, as we see in Cuba and Venezuela, the reverse is true: poverty doesn't cause Communism, Communism causes poverty.

As Gov. Reagan said of the Soviet Union, "Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition. We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!"

King's pacifism was effective with fellow Southerners whose consciences could be pricked by shared Christian and American values. Had it been tried against violent aggressors in, say, South Korea or Grenada, they would still be Communist prisons today. That is why the American Eagle carries an olive branch in one talon and arrows in the other.

As we see from both Cuba and from FISA-Gate, Communism is about control, raw power--and keeping it. Obama was not the culmination of King's Dream, but its antithesis.

There is no playbook for this Deep State Cockroach Coup Attempt in America's history. Watergate doesn't even come close. 

Nor do Bush v. Gore, Kennedy/Nixon or the Jackson/Quincy Adams Corrupt Bargain of 1824. Even Burr's insurrection and Arnold's treason don't compare to the Deep State Coup against President George Washington's peaceful transfer of executive power.

The only historical event that does compare to the entire NATSEC Apparatus being weaponized to thwart America's choice of a duly-elected president is the Slave Power Rebellion and Copperhead Coup Attempt called the Civil War. And even that analogy has its limits. We're charting a new course we've never seen before.

But we never had a President Donald J. Trump before, either.

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

"2081"

We Have Always Been at War With Some Animals Who Are More Equal Than Others

 Mark Steyn:
London overtook New York in murders for the first time in modern history in February as the capital endured a dramatic surge in knife crime.
Fifteen people were murdered in the capital, against 14 in New York. Both cities have almost exactly the same population.
London murders for March are also likely to exceed or equal New York's. By late last night there had been 22 killings in the capital, according to the Metropolitan police, against 21 in the US city.
Eight Londoners were murdered between March 14 and March 20 alone and the total number of London murders, even excluding victims of terrorism, has risen by 38% since 2014.
Interesting. But why exactly are terrorism victims - Westminster Bridge, London Bridge - excluded? As we all know from Mrs May, Mr Cameron and the rest, terrorism is nothing to do with anything: it's nothing to do with Islam, it's nothing to do with immigration, it's nothing to do with any socio-cultural factors... So presumably it's simply a criminal matter, in which case violent death at the hands of another person acting with intent ought surely to count as part of the murder statistics. Golly, you'd almost get the impression the authorities had come up with a system expressly designed to keep the numbers low...
Meanwhile, The Daily Mail lets us know the names of the dead:
Sadiq Mohamed, 20, Kentish Town
Abdikarim Hassan, 17, Kentish Town
Josef Boci, 30, Greenwich
Seyed Khan, 49, Ilford
Rotimi Oshibanjo, 26, Southall
Promise Nkenda, 17, Canning Town
Sabri Chibani, 19, Streatham Common
Lewis Blackman, 19, Kensington
Hasan Ozcan, 19, Barking
Hannah Leonard, 55, Swiss Cottage
Kwabena Nelson, 22, Tottenham
Mark Smith, 48, Chingford
Bulent Kabala, 41, Enfield
Saeeda Hussain, 54, Ilford
Juan Olmos Saca, 39, Peckham
What a positively Dickensian roll-call. Of the three names a Londoner might have had at the time of, say, Darkest Hour, Lewis Blackman was a black man stabbed to death by six teenagers; Hannah Leonard was a middle-aged Irish lady also stabbed to death, by a couple from Kilburn; and Mark Smith apparently met his end at the hands of a woman "of no fixed abode". At least eighty-five per cent of that grim toll would have been wholly unknown to pre-multicultural London, because neither perpetrators nor victims would have been residents of the United Kingdom.

If you were to say that on Twitter, Scotland Yard would stop investigating today's stabbing and investigate you instead. To modify a famous Philip K Dick line, reality doesn't cease just because Mrs May, the Metropolitan Police and everyone else who matters stop believing in it. Yet they are making a sustained attempt to suspend it. Thus, a British subject who Tweeted her differences of opinion with a "paediatric transgender" activist is now forbidden to leave the United Kingdom. Ten years ago, signing up a primary-school child for "gender re-assignment" was a radical position. Then it became received opinion. Now it's illegal to disagree with it.

To reprise my old line: In Britain everything is policed except crime.".......
Random Lady Loitering In a No-Thinking Zone: They'd arrest her today.