I realize that Donald, not Milton, was on the ballot in 2016. I recognized that I would have philosophical differences with the president from time to time. Given that he is in his second year, it is surprising to me how infrequent those gentlemen's disagreements have arisen. It's going to take a lot more than this to get me to jump off the Trump Train.
The case for tariffs confirms a bias for simplism (not a bias for simplicity.) The protectionist viewpoint can be reduced to a slogan but the defense of free trade requires intellectual substance. That requires time, effort and thought.
We see something similar in the gun debate. The gun-grabbers resort to chants, slogans, name-calling, half-truths, and insults. Brevity minus the wit. It takes time and effort to promote the counter intuitive argument that the proliferation of guns is the best method of preventing gun violence.
So too, free trade. Populism is a double-edged sword and the American consumer might have to take it on the chin from the "pay just a few pennies more if we make it here" purveyors of simplism. Fortunately, we have the words of Milton Friedman to put things in perspective.
There is so much more. I am tempted to post every Friedman video ever taped, but not right now. This one spells out the merits of free trade--especially for the consumer--a little bit better.
Milton lives!
Saturday, March 17, 2018
Can We Book Him On A Hate Crime? Ohio High School Student Refuses To Join In Walkout
From the state that gave us the terrorist known as Joe The Plumber, rests Jake The Inert. While his fellow students bravely goose-stepped out of their school, Jake sat idly, derelict of expressive conscience.
Racist? Sexist? Homophobe? Do we even even need to pose those questions? How many more will be slaughtered because Jake the Snake wants to be a Switzerland of one? Is neutrality not an exercise in white male privilege? Should we prosecute Mr. Shoemaker?
From The Blaze (Yes, They are still around)
Racist? Sexist? Homophobe? Do we even even need to pose those questions? How many more will be slaughtered because Jake the Snake wants to be a Switzerland of one? Is neutrality not an exercise in white male privilege? Should we prosecute Mr. Shoemaker?
From The Blaze (Yes, They are still around)
High school student Jake Shoemaker, a senior at Hilliard Davidson High School in Ohio, was suspended for refusing to “follow instructions” when he opted to remain neutral during a nationwide student walkout on Wednesday.
Shoemaker was given the choice of either participating in a walkout to protest gun violence, or to attend study hall. He felt both of those options would brand him for taking a political position, so instead he sat in his designated classroom, alone, for the duration of the protest.
In an interview with WSYX-TV, Shoemaker said “I really didn’t have a choice here. If you walked out you were with the protest, you were for gun control and anti-gun violence. And if you sat in this pit with all these other people you were pro gun-violence.”
The student further defended his decision, saying “It’s the least political protest that exists. The thing that I was protesting was politics in the classroom. I feel it has no place in a school, in a district, anywhere.”
Book him, Danno.
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Class Action?
Is Q/Trump pushing us to jump start class action suits against CIA for domestic spying?
Should we also file suit against NSA?
Are tech and social media companies who knowingly facilitate government spying responsible for the damages inflicted by such actions?
Do companies who provide anti-virus protection with the knowledge that their product or service will not thwart government spyware accept money under false pretenses? If so, would they be vulnerable to class action suits?
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Where Do The Dems Go From Here?
Barack Obama seems to be the fecal version of King Midas. Arguably, everything he touches turns to dung.
The world at large was made worse by Obama. The Middle East has always been chaotic but the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia has claimed about a million lives and shows no sign of slowing down.
America is much worse off post-Obama. $10 trillion of additional debt that will take decades to repay. Good insurance policies were driven off by bad ones. Pension disasters loom. He left our military in a state of decline. He sowed the seeds of rancor and vitriol and social discord.
Like radioactive waste, the closer you get to BO, the worse the damage. The news media took big hits to their credibility in the Obama years. Their loyalty came at a steep price.
The biggest loser in the Obama years is the Democrat Party. Obama was given a donkey utopia. In 8 years he managed to jettison over 1,000 offices including both houses of Congress, and numerous state legislatures and governorships. The damage is not generally acknowledged, but it is real.
The Dems will continue to use voter fraud as their bread and butter. Reforms might already be underway, but do not underestimate the Jacksonians' duplicity and resilience and resourcefulness. Where there is a will to cheat, the Dems will find a way.
The Party of the Klan still has a stranglehold on the news media.They elected a nobody to the White House in 2008 and they have made sure that we know almost nothing about this shadowy figure ten years later. That is clout! No, the Cooperistas are not what they were last decade, but they can still ruin a Roy Moore if they have to. Don't count out the dinosaurs just yet.
The future impact of voter fraud and media corruption is hard to calculate. But even with both weapons on overdrive, the Dems lost badly in 2016. Discounting the one singular sensation that is Donald Trump, we remind the reader that 2016 was yet one more decisive Demo bloodbath. Across the country they managed to shed even more seats as they even lost both houses in blue blue Minnesota and the governor's seat in even bluer Vermont. Clearly, a new strategy is in order. Let us examine some possibilities.
1. The Charlie Crist Strategy:
A Demo/RINO/Anti-Trumpo coalition now pervades newsrooms and could provide the blueprint for the Democratic Party's future. Much has been made of the D-Team's depleted bench. Why not recruit from disaffected Republicans?
Charlie Crist is Exhibit A. He was a "moderate" Republican governor who predictabally supported John McCain early on. Then there was this Tea Party movement and Crist fell out of favor. He ran for the Senate in 2010 but was upended by a new kid on the block named Marco Rubio.
Undeterred, Crist would release a book entitled "The Party's Over: How the Extreme Right Hijacked the GOP and I Became a Democrat" in 2014. Later that year, he challenged and almost defeated the Florida incumbent governor, Rick Scott.
In 2016, the inextinguishable Crist bucked a Republican wave and won the 13th Congressional District of Florida for the Democrats, defeating Republican incumbent, David Jolly.
If Crist can mount a comeback, how about Jeb Bush? The Bushes run as Republicans but govern like Democrats. They would have been loved and revered by the news media had they had a giant D after their names. Always the black sheep of the ruling class, the Bush clan yearn to be loved like the Kennedys and respected like the Rockefellers. But, there is that pesky Republican moniker that ruins everything.
Donald Trump might have spit in Jeb'b's punch bowl in 2016 but he could have opened a portal for Jeb to enter the Democratic Party. RINO's like John Kasich might follow suit. We might see Jeff Flake come out of retirement. Pundits like Glenn Beck and William Kristol might also wage comebacks in the climate of radical nothingness.
Bush/Booker 2020! Unify America! Let us not rule out the possibility just yet.
2. The Celebrity Uber Alles Strategy:
Maybe the Dems would project a clearer image if they did not try to be all things to all people. Maybe they should dispense with any pretense of populism and embrace their elitist instincts. "We are the party of the rich and famous and the people who suck up to us!"
And so, they spread out across Flyoverya, leaving behind--at least to the degree to satisfy resident status at their new homes--the utopic confines of New York and California. Billionaires and celebrities would challenge Republican incumbents in Congress, the Senate and the governor's mansions.
A Tom Steyer moves to sunny Arizona and runs for Senator. Bruce Springsteen buys a second home in Pennsylvania to defeat Pat Toomey in 2022. Chris Cuomo challenges for the Georgia Senate seat in 2020. Mark Zuckerberg could carpetbag a Senate seat in North Carolina and lay the groundwork for his presidential run. Ben Affleck gropes his way across the Golden State to challenge Kevin McCarthy or Duncan D. Hunter on their home turf.
The barriers are obvious. Wisconsin might be too cold for George Clooney. Michigan might be too dangerous for Jay-Z. And what if Mr. Z actually won the governor's office? He would be on a leash until he could get himself appointed Ambassador to Cuba. Matt Damon might not want to settle for a Congressional seat. Oprah might not want to part with her hard-earned dollars to buy a seat in Obscuria. Some candidates might even lose.
The Celebrity Uber Alles Strategy might work but it might be as difficult as herding cats plus the felines' agents, entourage, and their "people." But it could happen.
3. The Political Gypsy Strategy:
Again, we have to put aside the subject of voter fraud. Let us just briefly assume that the 2016 tallies are correct and Hillary won the popular vote. If that is the case, all the Dems need to do is redistribute their flock to battleground states. If done with precision, the Dems could capture the White House, both houses of Congress as well as most state houses.
First, we should discuss the legality, logistics and expense of relocating vast numbers of people. It would be illegal, of course, to pay citizens to vote in a certain way. It would not be illegal to hire them as employees of the Democratic Party and put them to work, registering voters for 40 hours a week. Think Occupy Wall Street with clipboards.
Yes, but wouldn't the employment of hundreds of thousands of people be difficult for anyone, much less a political party that is hovering close to broke? Consider the blockchain. The Dems could issue their own cryptocurrency or currencies. Don't dismiss this tactic just yet. The blockchain will change everything. Everything!
To win the presidency, the Dems need 37 more electoral votes than they collected in 2016.
Michigan, with its 17 electoral points, was decided by 13,080 votes.
Pennsylvania, with its 21 electoral points, was decided by 68,236 votes.
North Carolina, with its 15 electoral points, was decided by 177, 009 votes.
Arizona, with its 10 electoral points, was decided by 91, 682 votes.
Note: This 4-state strategy only concerns itself with capturing the White House. To win other elections as well, would involve more sophistication.
Those above states were selected for the close results in 2016 as well as their geography. They are spread out far enough to not compete with one another for migrant voters.
In a presidential election, the Dems would share some of their excess voters in places like New York, Illinois and Maryland without losing elections in those states.
In a presidential election (it might be different if close Senate, Congressional or gubernatorial elections were being held in the home states) the Dems might consider temporarily abandoning their red state homes to work for their presidential choice in one of the four identified battleground states.
District of Columbia has over 600,000 residents and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. They could lend a few voters to say, nearby Pennsylvania.
Puerto Rico has 3.6 million people and they mostly vote Democrat. They could contribute mightily to the vote totals in any of the four designated battleground states.
The four-state strategy might work something like this: Pennsylvania would be flooded with excess voters from New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and other Northeast states not named Maine or New Hampshire. Delaware and Maryland might also provide some driftwood as might the DC Reservoir.
The Dems would concede the South except for Virginia, which they already hold, and North Carolina. (Maryland is technically a southern state but it is really just a suburb of DC.) Troglodytes and cellar dwellers and SJW's from Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc., could migrate to North Carolina to tip the scales for the Hope and Change Party.
Michigan could play host to Chicago radicals as well as bums from Indianapolis and Cleveland. The Wolverine State might be a tough sell for anyone but they only need 13,081 more voters. DC? Puerto Rico? If only for a few months?
Arizona is vulnerable to Blue capture. California could spare about a million or so voters but it might be wiser if they relocated them to red Congressional districts in their home state. Washington and Oregon might fortify Nevada or Colorado, or possible enjoy the cactus state for a season. Texas and Utah are going to go red, so the Antifa and other Democrats from those places might consider the Grand Canyon State for a change of scenery. Ditto North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas...Only 91,683 needed.
So far, we have only discussed presidential elections. Mississippi holds state elections the year before presidential elections. If Dems master the blockchain, they could easily conquer the Magnolia State.
New Jersey and Virginia hold state elections the year after presidential elections. Last year, both states went blue but that could change. Why would the Dems play it safe?
The other 47 states hold state elections in even-numbered years, either presidential, off-year, or both. The Dems could corral their snowflakes so that they participate in elections in four different states in four different years. Might be more glamorous than living in Mom's basement.
The Democrats might adopt one or all of the above strategies. Time will tell. In the meantime, what are the Dems up to?
Complete story at World Socialist Web Site:
That's right! The Dems are recruiting from the deep state. This certainly confirms the validity of Q Anon. For the uniformed, Q Anon advances the idea that we are in the midst of a proxy civil war fought between CIA and Military Intelligence. I think I already used the term resourceful to describe the Democrats, didn't I?
I thought the blue wave was about as likely as the Hillary Landslide we heard so much about. Maybe the Demoncrats will surprise us in 2018 after all.
If we can just get Obama to get involved. Maybe he still has that fecal touch.
The world at large was made worse by Obama. The Middle East has always been chaotic but the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia has claimed about a million lives and shows no sign of slowing down.
America is much worse off post-Obama. $10 trillion of additional debt that will take decades to repay. Good insurance policies were driven off by bad ones. Pension disasters loom. He left our military in a state of decline. He sowed the seeds of rancor and vitriol and social discord.
Like radioactive waste, the closer you get to BO, the worse the damage. The news media took big hits to their credibility in the Obama years. Their loyalty came at a steep price.
The biggest loser in the Obama years is the Democrat Party. Obama was given a donkey utopia. In 8 years he managed to jettison over 1,000 offices including both houses of Congress, and numerous state legislatures and governorships. The damage is not generally acknowledged, but it is real.
The Dems will continue to use voter fraud as their bread and butter. Reforms might already be underway, but do not underestimate the Jacksonians' duplicity and resilience and resourcefulness. Where there is a will to cheat, the Dems will find a way.
The Party of the Klan still has a stranglehold on the news media.They elected a nobody to the White House in 2008 and they have made sure that we know almost nothing about this shadowy figure ten years later. That is clout! No, the Cooperistas are not what they were last decade, but they can still ruin a Roy Moore if they have to. Don't count out the dinosaurs just yet.
The future impact of voter fraud and media corruption is hard to calculate. But even with both weapons on overdrive, the Dems lost badly in 2016. Discounting the one singular sensation that is Donald Trump, we remind the reader that 2016 was yet one more decisive Demo bloodbath. Across the country they managed to shed even more seats as they even lost both houses in blue blue Minnesota and the governor's seat in even bluer Vermont. Clearly, a new strategy is in order. Let us examine some possibilities.
1. The Charlie Crist Strategy:
A Demo/RINO/Anti-Trumpo coalition now pervades newsrooms and could provide the blueprint for the Democratic Party's future. Much has been made of the D-Team's depleted bench. Why not recruit from disaffected Republicans?
Charlie Crist is Exhibit A. He was a "moderate" Republican governor who predictabally supported John McCain early on. Then there was this Tea Party movement and Crist fell out of favor. He ran for the Senate in 2010 but was upended by a new kid on the block named Marco Rubio.
Undeterred, Crist would release a book entitled "The Party's Over: How the Extreme Right Hijacked the GOP and I Became a Democrat" in 2014. Later that year, he challenged and almost defeated the Florida incumbent governor, Rick Scott.
In 2016, the inextinguishable Crist bucked a Republican wave and won the 13th Congressional District of Florida for the Democrats, defeating Republican incumbent, David Jolly.
If Crist can mount a comeback, how about Jeb Bush? The Bushes run as Republicans but govern like Democrats. They would have been loved and revered by the news media had they had a giant D after their names. Always the black sheep of the ruling class, the Bush clan yearn to be loved like the Kennedys and respected like the Rockefellers. But, there is that pesky Republican moniker that ruins everything.
Donald Trump might have spit in Jeb'b's punch bowl in 2016 but he could have opened a portal for Jeb to enter the Democratic Party. RINO's like John Kasich might follow suit. We might see Jeff Flake come out of retirement. Pundits like Glenn Beck and William Kristol might also wage comebacks in the climate of radical nothingness.
Bush/Booker 2020! Unify America! Let us not rule out the possibility just yet.
2. The Celebrity Uber Alles Strategy:
Maybe the Dems would project a clearer image if they did not try to be all things to all people. Maybe they should dispense with any pretense of populism and embrace their elitist instincts. "We are the party of the rich and famous and the people who suck up to us!"
And so, they spread out across Flyoverya, leaving behind--at least to the degree to satisfy resident status at their new homes--the utopic confines of New York and California. Billionaires and celebrities would challenge Republican incumbents in Congress, the Senate and the governor's mansions.
A Tom Steyer moves to sunny Arizona and runs for Senator. Bruce Springsteen buys a second home in Pennsylvania to defeat Pat Toomey in 2022. Chris Cuomo challenges for the Georgia Senate seat in 2020. Mark Zuckerberg could carpetbag a Senate seat in North Carolina and lay the groundwork for his presidential run. Ben Affleck gropes his way across the Golden State to challenge Kevin McCarthy or Duncan D. Hunter on their home turf.
The barriers are obvious. Wisconsin might be too cold for George Clooney. Michigan might be too dangerous for Jay-Z. And what if Mr. Z actually won the governor's office? He would be on a leash until he could get himself appointed Ambassador to Cuba. Matt Damon might not want to settle for a Congressional seat. Oprah might not want to part with her hard-earned dollars to buy a seat in Obscuria. Some candidates might even lose.
The Celebrity Uber Alles Strategy might work but it might be as difficult as herding cats plus the felines' agents, entourage, and their "people." But it could happen.
3. The Political Gypsy Strategy:
Again, we have to put aside the subject of voter fraud. Let us just briefly assume that the 2016 tallies are correct and Hillary won the popular vote. If that is the case, all the Dems need to do is redistribute their flock to battleground states. If done with precision, the Dems could capture the White House, both houses of Congress as well as most state houses.
First, we should discuss the legality, logistics and expense of relocating vast numbers of people. It would be illegal, of course, to pay citizens to vote in a certain way. It would not be illegal to hire them as employees of the Democratic Party and put them to work, registering voters for 40 hours a week. Think Occupy Wall Street with clipboards.
Yes, but wouldn't the employment of hundreds of thousands of people be difficult for anyone, much less a political party that is hovering close to broke? Consider the blockchain. The Dems could issue their own cryptocurrency or currencies. Don't dismiss this tactic just yet. The blockchain will change everything. Everything!
To win the presidency, the Dems need 37 more electoral votes than they collected in 2016.
Michigan, with its 17 electoral points, was decided by 13,080 votes.
Pennsylvania, with its 21 electoral points, was decided by 68,236 votes.
North Carolina, with its 15 electoral points, was decided by 177, 009 votes.
Arizona, with its 10 electoral points, was decided by 91, 682 votes.
Note: This 4-state strategy only concerns itself with capturing the White House. To win other elections as well, would involve more sophistication.
Those above states were selected for the close results in 2016 as well as their geography. They are spread out far enough to not compete with one another for migrant voters.
In a presidential election, the Dems would share some of their excess voters in places like New York, Illinois and Maryland without losing elections in those states.
In a presidential election (it might be different if close Senate, Congressional or gubernatorial elections were being held in the home states) the Dems might consider temporarily abandoning their red state homes to work for their presidential choice in one of the four identified battleground states.
District of Columbia has over 600,000 residents and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. They could lend a few voters to say, nearby Pennsylvania.
Puerto Rico has 3.6 million people and they mostly vote Democrat. They could contribute mightily to the vote totals in any of the four designated battleground states.
The four-state strategy might work something like this: Pennsylvania would be flooded with excess voters from New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and other Northeast states not named Maine or New Hampshire. Delaware and Maryland might also provide some driftwood as might the DC Reservoir.
The Dems would concede the South except for Virginia, which they already hold, and North Carolina. (Maryland is technically a southern state but it is really just a suburb of DC.) Troglodytes and cellar dwellers and SJW's from Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc., could migrate to North Carolina to tip the scales for the Hope and Change Party.
Michigan could play host to Chicago radicals as well as bums from Indianapolis and Cleveland. The Wolverine State might be a tough sell for anyone but they only need 13,081 more voters. DC? Puerto Rico? If only for a few months?
Arizona is vulnerable to Blue capture. California could spare about a million or so voters but it might be wiser if they relocated them to red Congressional districts in their home state. Washington and Oregon might fortify Nevada or Colorado, or possible enjoy the cactus state for a season. Texas and Utah are going to go red, so the Antifa and other Democrats from those places might consider the Grand Canyon State for a change of scenery. Ditto North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas...Only 91,683 needed.
So far, we have only discussed presidential elections. Mississippi holds state elections the year before presidential elections. If Dems master the blockchain, they could easily conquer the Magnolia State.
New Jersey and Virginia hold state elections the year after presidential elections. Last year, both states went blue but that could change. Why would the Dems play it safe?
The other 47 states hold state elections in even-numbered years, either presidential, off-year, or both. The Dems could corral their snowflakes so that they participate in elections in four different states in four different years. Might be more glamorous than living in Mom's basement.
The Democrats might adopt one or all of the above strategies. Time will tell. In the meantime, what are the Dems up to?
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored “star” recruit.
Complete story at World Socialist Web Site:
That's right! The Dems are recruiting from the deep state. This certainly confirms the validity of Q Anon. For the uniformed, Q Anon advances the idea that we are in the midst of a proxy civil war fought between CIA and Military Intelligence. I think I already used the term resourceful to describe the Democrats, didn't I?
I thought the blue wave was about as likely as the Hillary Landslide we heard so much about. Maybe the Demoncrats will surprise us in 2018 after all.
If we can just get Obama to get involved. Maybe he still has that fecal touch.
Saturday, March 10, 2018
Hey Obama: Who's Your Daddy?
The death of JFK and the life of Barack Obama are two enduring mysteries that might be linked and might be illuminated by Q and Donald Trump. Long shots yes, but...
The most incomprehensible matter I have ever faced is that America had a two-term unvetted president.
The second most incomprehensible matter I have ever faced is that roughly half of America does not want Barack Obama vetted. They are downright phobic on this issue. Truth is their worst nightmare. Any beacon of truth surely must be racist to the core.
I will state my position once more. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii a US citizen but he probably lost his citizenship when he was adopted by the Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro. Barack Obama is probably an Indonesian citizen and thus, was never eligible for the US Presidency,
The birth certificate issue was played masterfully by Obama's people and dimwits like Joe Arpaio took the bait. Had "The Birthers" focused their attention on Barry's Indonesian citizenship, history might have yielded a better chapter. To paraphrase Gary Larson, the bull strategically went for the cape.
Obama's lineage and its importance has been downplayed. Was his maternal grandfather a CIA agent? Was his mother a CIA asset? Why oh why oh why oh why was an adolescent Barack Obama introduced to Frank Marshall Davis? As far as I know, BO only wrote two poems and one seems to bear the theme of man-boy love. But someone thought it essential to introduce a wayward teenager to a perverted Communist.
Barack Obama is not an intellectual heavyweight but he has niches of expertise. Unfortunately, those niches are Communist theory and Islamic politics. As a freshman at Occidental, Barry (the name he used to call himself at the time) could and would speak endlessly about radical theory. He was well-versed on this topic.
Likewise, President Obama understood the Shia vs Sunni rivalry in all of its myriad detail. Good that he had that knowledge but how did he absorb all that? Did he study Middle East politics as an undergrad? Oh darn. His records are sealed and he was The Invisible Man at Columbia. Maybe one of his fawning biographers could help us out here. No? Not returning calls? Yo! Mr. Remmick!
If you study the JFK assassination, you will get frustrated. Every time you think you have it nailed down, something upsets your apple cart. You think it was the Mafia and then H. L. Hunt makes a death bed confession. And you think it was the CIA after all until you learn that Billy Sol Estes's grand jury testimony implicated LBJ in not one, not two, not three but eight homicides, including the murder of President Kennedy. The conspiracies start to contradict each other.
So it is with all things related to The International Man of Mystery. He was a CIA spawn. He was a Saudi deep spy. He was an Iranian deep spy. He pretended to be a Saudi spy but he double crossed them to help their arch-enemies, the Iranians. He was the fruition of a century of Communist conspiracy....
I don't know. What I do know is that the official narrative is spotty at best. I also know that there was a cover-up. What exactly was obliterated? I don't know but I do know that an inordinate number of records have been sealed and the news media won't go near certain subjects. I also know that people who publicly raise certain topics are likely to be audited and in the case of Joe Arpaio, prosecuted on spurious charges.
Which brings us back to BO's real father. My once-favorite website, "American Thinker", started overloading their site with browser-crippling ads and I stopped reading their great work. So I missed this from January 14, 2014: "Barack Hussein Soebarkah?"
This article seemed to kick off yet another chapter in the "Who's Obama's Daddy" parlor game. I had other issues to attend to and this topic escaped my attention. Recently, I saw a picture of Muhammad Subud Soebarkah. Did this spry 61 year old sire our 44th president?
Conspiracy overload? Gotcha. But let's look at the cult leader in question.
Yes, there are lookalikes tossed to the far corners of the world. But please be reminded that this man's name had been handwritten onto a young Barack Obama's passport and later crossed out. Stanley Dunham was a member of the Subud cult that thrived in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago. She was certainly familiar with this man.
The most incomprehensible matter I have ever faced is that America had a two-term unvetted president.
The second most incomprehensible matter I have ever faced is that roughly half of America does not want Barack Obama vetted. They are downright phobic on this issue. Truth is their worst nightmare. Any beacon of truth surely must be racist to the core.
I will state my position once more. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii a US citizen but he probably lost his citizenship when he was adopted by the Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro. Barack Obama is probably an Indonesian citizen and thus, was never eligible for the US Presidency,
The birth certificate issue was played masterfully by Obama's people and dimwits like Joe Arpaio took the bait. Had "The Birthers" focused their attention on Barry's Indonesian citizenship, history might have yielded a better chapter. To paraphrase Gary Larson, the bull strategically went for the cape.
Obama's lineage and its importance has been downplayed. Was his maternal grandfather a CIA agent? Was his mother a CIA asset? Why oh why oh why oh why was an adolescent Barack Obama introduced to Frank Marshall Davis? As far as I know, BO only wrote two poems and one seems to bear the theme of man-boy love. But someone thought it essential to introduce a wayward teenager to a perverted Communist.
Barack Obama is not an intellectual heavyweight but he has niches of expertise. Unfortunately, those niches are Communist theory and Islamic politics. As a freshman at Occidental, Barry (the name he used to call himself at the time) could and would speak endlessly about radical theory. He was well-versed on this topic.
Likewise, President Obama understood the Shia vs Sunni rivalry in all of its myriad detail. Good that he had that knowledge but how did he absorb all that? Did he study Middle East politics as an undergrad? Oh darn. His records are sealed and he was The Invisible Man at Columbia. Maybe one of his fawning biographers could help us out here. No? Not returning calls? Yo! Mr. Remmick!
If you study the JFK assassination, you will get frustrated. Every time you think you have it nailed down, something upsets your apple cart. You think it was the Mafia and then H. L. Hunt makes a death bed confession. And you think it was the CIA after all until you learn that Billy Sol Estes's grand jury testimony implicated LBJ in not one, not two, not three but eight homicides, including the murder of President Kennedy. The conspiracies start to contradict each other.
So it is with all things related to The International Man of Mystery. He was a CIA spawn. He was a Saudi deep spy. He was an Iranian deep spy. He pretended to be a Saudi spy but he double crossed them to help their arch-enemies, the Iranians. He was the fruition of a century of Communist conspiracy....
I don't know. What I do know is that the official narrative is spotty at best. I also know that there was a cover-up. What exactly was obliterated? I don't know but I do know that an inordinate number of records have been sealed and the news media won't go near certain subjects. I also know that people who publicly raise certain topics are likely to be audited and in the case of Joe Arpaio, prosecuted on spurious charges.
Which brings us back to BO's real father. My once-favorite website, "American Thinker", started overloading their site with browser-crippling ads and I stopped reading their great work. So I missed this from January 14, 2014: "Barack Hussein Soebarkah?"
This article seemed to kick off yet another chapter in the "Who's Obama's Daddy" parlor game. I had other issues to attend to and this topic escaped my attention. Recently, I saw a picture of Muhammad Subud Soebarkah. Did this spry 61 year old sire our 44th president?
Conspiracy overload? Gotcha. But let's look at the cult leader in question.
Yes, there are lookalikes tossed to the far corners of the world. But please be reminded that this man's name had been handwritten onto a young Barack Obama's passport and later crossed out. Stanley Dunham was a member of the Subud cult that thrived in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago. She was certainly familiar with this man.
Others have connected some dots for us.
Conclusion: It's high time Barack Obama was vetted.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
The Obama Portraits Without Irony, Sarcasm Or Snide Remarks. Part 2: The President
As impartial and unbiased and neutral as I can be on the subject, this is one of the most bizarre chapters in American history.
It goes like this: President Obama, in all of his grandeur and self-esteem, simply could not have a presidential portrait that in any way resembled other presidential portraits. So he commissioned controversial artist Kehinde Wiley to complete the job.
Kehinde Wiley, either motivated by his own quest for notoriety or his need to trash the office of the president, launched an obviously disrespectful product. In the process of degradation, Barack Obama became collateral damage. There is no other logical conclusion.
First, allow us to let the self-professed arbiters of truth, Snopes.com, summarize one aspect of the portrait.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Spermatoza:
The official portrait of former President Barack Obama contains secretly-placed images of sperm cells, including one on his forehead.
RATING
FALSEORIGIN
It was perhaps inevitable that controversy would surround the unveiling of former President Obama’s official portrait in February 2018, given that it was painted by Kehinde Wiley, a gay African-American artist who is also a self-professed provocateur.
The Internet bristled with reproductions of two of Wiley’s previous works depicting black women holding the severed heads of white people — tableaux some decried as “racist” — even as conservative pundits went on about supposedly detected representations of “sperm cells” in Obama’s portrait.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you are interested, Snopes countered by calling the anons who magnified the portrait, drum roll please, racist trolls.
Magnification reveals a large foreign object under the president's left temple that just so happens to resemble a sperm cell.
Now let's back up a little bit. Hidden sperm is Wiley's signature.
In the following concoction, the sperm are not hidden. Magnify at your own risk.
By the way, I claim fair use for what might be copyrighted work.
On the issue of hidden sperm, Snopes is clearly wrong, if not openly deceptive. The MSM has launched several refutation efforts that are easily found with a search engine. Yes, Barack Obama has a prominent vein on yes left temple. No, he does not have a baby snake submerged under his skin. Wiley used the vein to hide his trademark.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obama's Hands:
Wiley has given Obama a left hand with six fingers or two right hands.
There is either a sixth finger (as well as a left thumb) submerged or a right thumb submerged. What is Wiley telling us?
I don't know about the six fingers but we have some history concerning two right hands.
Pharaohs have been drawn with two right hands.
And there is this explanation.
I don't know what Wiley is trying to communicate. What we know is that he is communicating his message intentionally.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Flowers:
Flowers do not have a static symbolism. Saints are sometimes associated with specific species of flowers and they find their way into various coats of arms.
Flowers often symbolize fertility. Makes sense.
Pansy is slang for sissy.
For all the discussion of the flowers' hidden meaning, it seems that there might have been some "cut and paste" involved.
Maybe the flowers are just a device to remove Obama from an American backdrop. There is nothing obviously American in this portrait. Nothing presidential. Whatever else might be said about the flowery, florid, leafy background, no gravitas is conveyed. None. Nada. Zilch.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Pose:
Life is kinetic. There is hidden motion in snapshots and still life drawings. I am not the first to suggest that this portrait conveys a man sitting on a toilet. Yes, Obama is clothed and he is seated on a chair and not a porcelain throne but, look closely (as painful as that might be) at the pose.
Does this altered photo look more authentic?
Wiley, for all his foolishness, knows what he is doing. He is trashing America and the presidency. If Barry gets dusted up in the process, that's art..
Despite what he has said publicly, I don't think Mr. Styrofoam Greek Column is pleased with Wiley's work.
Is The Internet Bill Of Rights Just The Repackaging Of Net Neutrality ?
Net Neutrality was doomed from the starting gate. Whatever it was supposed to be--other than something sinister advanced by the likes of Soros and Obama--was never really communicated. The silly ass slogan "net neutrality" did not inspire thought or feeling or anything else.
The Internet Bill Of Rights sounds great on pixel but let's think this through. This is not so much a Bill of Rights as it is a set of regulations that favor "us" over "them".
Whatever else might be said Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, et al, they are private companies offering free services. How many people who complain about Google's data mining bother to use a proxy server? How many use the search engine, Duckduckgo?
And yes, Google does bury material that might be unfavorable to say, Barack Obama. A subject that has interested me for about a decade is the Obama Halo. This cheesy ass propaganda campaign might be what got BO elected in 2008. Do a Google search and you will get links to the video game Halo or the song of the same name. Do a Duckduckgo search and you can relive that Jonestown era when friends and family discovered their new deity. An endless stream of small sites who exposed the flim flam.
How many people who complain about Youtube censorship or demonetization post to Bitchute or Dtube or Vimeo? Google owns Youtube and they are no more obligated to post your material than is your local radio station obligated to provide Keith Ellison with three hours to rebut Rush Limbaugh. Do we really want an Internet Fairness Doctrine? Think it through, folks.
I for one am opposed to antitrust laws as we know them. Yes, if they were to be applied to things like public education or civic taxi monopolies or civic cable monopolies or a multitude of professions that use bogus licensure to do all the things that anti-trust laws are supposed to be used to protect the public...then I would be all for antitrust laws.
Unfortunately, antitrust laws are but one more weapon for the politically connected. Howard Hughes was one of the wealthiest men in the world but he woefully lacked political acumen. He would be the target of a wacky application of antitrust for purposes that were never crystal clear.
I mention antitrust laws because some of the same voices who sing the praises of IBOR also advocate for antitrust laws being applied to Google and Facebook. There are dozens if not hundreds of arguments against this sort of action. For brevity sake, let us examine one.
Microsoft was attacked by the Clinton Administration primarily for giving away freebies with their operating system. The Clinton Administration, liquored up by huge donations from Microsoft donors, advanced the absurd viewpoint that the public would be better served if they had to shell out an extra fifty bucks for Netscape Navigator. How dare they provide Internet Explorer for free!
The net result of Clinton's saber-rattling: Microsoft has consummated an amorous relationship with the Democrat Party, with or without the legal sanction of matrimony. Microsoft and her employees have donated millions to the Democrat coffers. MSNBC provides 24/7 promotion of the DNC agenda, as does the MSN portal and the Bing search engine as well. If you think the co-opting of what was once an apolitical corporation is not related to the original threat of antitrust legislation, you might be an idiot. Tread lightly, my friends.
The same people who advocate for IBOR also suggest that the Internet be regulated as a public utility? Do we even need to list all the reasons why that is a bad idea? Do we need to be reminded of the Obama Administration's efforts to use the FCC to regulate (as in shut YOU down forever) the Internet as a public utility? Do we need to point out the obvious differences between the Internet and the delivery of natural gas? Can you heat your house with 5g delivery using your cell phone? Wake up, people! (Or if you prefer, get woke.)
One more wretched idea promoted by the IBOR crowd: Let Donald Trump install his own FTC administrators and then sic them on people we do not like.
So, we won't be draining the swamp, we will just replace the leeches with our own? The mosquitoes will work for us now? The swamp will still produce methane but it will be our methane? Swamps are lovely places. Who doesn't love a swamp and all of its lovely creatures?
Net neutrality, Internet Bill of Rights, FCC regulation, FTC regulation, DOJ interference. The results are all pretty much the same. More control by the Beltway over the citizenry. All of these vehicles that might prop us up can shut us down.
The IBOR wants to use the hammer of justice to reward us and to punish them. This is what happens when we place proper nouns ahead of principles. A preachy reminder: principles endure where people fail us. Red pill.
The Internet Bill Of Rights sounds great on pixel but let's think this through. This is not so much a Bill of Rights as it is a set of regulations that favor "us" over "them".
Whatever else might be said Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, et al, they are private companies offering free services. How many people who complain about Google's data mining bother to use a proxy server? How many use the search engine, Duckduckgo?
And yes, Google does bury material that might be unfavorable to say, Barack Obama. A subject that has interested me for about a decade is the Obama Halo. This cheesy ass propaganda campaign might be what got BO elected in 2008. Do a Google search and you will get links to the video game Halo or the song of the same name. Do a Duckduckgo search and you can relive that Jonestown era when friends and family discovered their new deity. An endless stream of small sites who exposed the flim flam.
How many people who complain about Youtube censorship or demonetization post to Bitchute or Dtube or Vimeo? Google owns Youtube and they are no more obligated to post your material than is your local radio station obligated to provide Keith Ellison with three hours to rebut Rush Limbaugh. Do we really want an Internet Fairness Doctrine? Think it through, folks.
I for one am opposed to antitrust laws as we know them. Yes, if they were to be applied to things like public education or civic taxi monopolies or civic cable monopolies or a multitude of professions that use bogus licensure to do all the things that anti-trust laws are supposed to be used to protect the public...then I would be all for antitrust laws.
Unfortunately, antitrust laws are but one more weapon for the politically connected. Howard Hughes was one of the wealthiest men in the world but he woefully lacked political acumen. He would be the target of a wacky application of antitrust for purposes that were never crystal clear.
I mention antitrust laws because some of the same voices who sing the praises of IBOR also advocate for antitrust laws being applied to Google and Facebook. There are dozens if not hundreds of arguments against this sort of action. For brevity sake, let us examine one.
Microsoft was attacked by the Clinton Administration primarily for giving away freebies with their operating system. The Clinton Administration, liquored up by huge donations from Microsoft donors, advanced the absurd viewpoint that the public would be better served if they had to shell out an extra fifty bucks for Netscape Navigator. How dare they provide Internet Explorer for free!
The net result of Clinton's saber-rattling: Microsoft has consummated an amorous relationship with the Democrat Party, with or without the legal sanction of matrimony. Microsoft and her employees have donated millions to the Democrat coffers. MSNBC provides 24/7 promotion of the DNC agenda, as does the MSN portal and the Bing search engine as well. If you think the co-opting of what was once an apolitical corporation is not related to the original threat of antitrust legislation, you might be an idiot. Tread lightly, my friends.
The same people who advocate for IBOR also suggest that the Internet be regulated as a public utility? Do we even need to list all the reasons why that is a bad idea? Do we need to be reminded of the Obama Administration's efforts to use the FCC to regulate (as in shut YOU down forever) the Internet as a public utility? Do we need to point out the obvious differences between the Internet and the delivery of natural gas? Can you heat your house with 5g delivery using your cell phone? Wake up, people! (Or if you prefer, get woke.)
One more wretched idea promoted by the IBOR crowd: Let Donald Trump install his own FTC administrators and then sic them on people we do not like.
So, we won't be draining the swamp, we will just replace the leeches with our own? The mosquitoes will work for us now? The swamp will still produce methane but it will be our methane? Swamps are lovely places. Who doesn't love a swamp and all of its lovely creatures?
Net neutrality, Internet Bill of Rights, FCC regulation, FTC regulation, DOJ interference. The results are all pretty much the same. More control by the Beltway over the citizenry. All of these vehicles that might prop us up can shut us down.
The IBOR wants to use the hammer of justice to reward us and to punish them. This is what happens when we place proper nouns ahead of principles. A preachy reminder: principles endure where people fail us. Red pill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)