Previous month:
July 2019
Next month:
September 2019


Once again the progressive socialist democrats abandon common sense and seek to punish the vast majority of law-abiding citizens for the acts of a few criminals, crazies, and terrorists. In effect, creating a large victim pool that might be so terrified that they will welcome a larger, more totalitarian government and nullify the constitutional safeguards to our freedom.

These are the basic gun control facts: one, criminals, crazies, and terrorists do not respect nor obey laws; two, strict gun control laws do not work; three, creating a larger victim pool encourages armed thuggery and oppressions; and four, people denied one type of weapon will find another means to carry out their heinous acts.


Proof that the progressive socialist democrats, especially those in San Francisco have more compassion for illegal aliens than they do for the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens…

Travesty … the San Francisco First District Court of Appeal overturns the gun conviction of Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, on a technicality. The illegal alien who was previously deported FIVE times, had seven felony convictions, and was on probation in Texas at the time of the shooting, claims he found a gun and it went off while he was handling it. Steinle, walking on the boardwalk died in her father’s arms, pleading for his help.

This appeal arises from circumstances resulting in the tragic death of a young woman. While walking on a crowded San Francisco pier early on a summer evening with her father and a family friend, Kate Steinle was struck in the back by a bullet and died.

[OCS: Had Kate Steinle been a minority, the progressives would still be marching and screaming “No Justice, No Peace.”]

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, who was holding the gun when it fired the shot that killed Ms. Steinle, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm after a jury acquitted him of murder, involuntary manslaughter, and assault with a firearm.

[OCS: I do not care how an illegal alien felon ended up holding a gun that fired and killed another individual.]

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of momentary possession.

[OCS: Momentary possession was a theory and was not substantiated by evidence.]

In determining whether a court erroneously failed to instruct on an affirmative defense, we consider whether any substantial evidence supported the defense and whether it was inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case. We are not permitted to reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses, and any doubts as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant instructions must be resolved in favor of the accused.

[OCS: The Appeals court was limited to answering the sole question about a jury instruction – not to reverse the actual conviction.]

At trial, defendant’s theory was that he was sitting in a swivel chair on the pier, bent over to pick up an object wrapped in rags, a gun fired accidentally, and he immediately threw the gun in the water to stop it from firing.

Critical to defendant’s theory of the case was proof that he did not know the object he picked up was a gun. After a careful review of the record, we find substantial evidence presented at trial permits at least two reasonable inferences: one, that defendant knew he held a gun and did not possess it solely with an intent to dispose of it, and two, that he was unaware he held a gun until it fired, at which time he threw it away to stop it from firing.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defense, as we must, we conclude the trial court erred in failing to give the momentary possession instruction. Because the error was prejudicial, we are compelled as a matter of law to reverse.

[OCS: He lied to officers regarding his identity, presence at the crime scene, and his actions, so why should anyone believe his story that was most likely concocted by the defense?]

At the beginning of the interview, defendant told officers his name was Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez and repeated several times that he was born in 1863. He had been sleeping on the street during the previous week.

The officers repeatedly told defendant they had witnesses who saw him throw a gun in the water and asked him if he threw a gun in the water. Defendant said no, that he was walking somewhere else and eating cookies far away from the pier, near the baseball stadium. Defendant initially denied having been on the pier at all. He denied knowing a girl had been killed, and denied seeing or hearing anything.

Gerald Smith, the supervising criminalist for the firearm and toolmark unit within the police department’s criminalistics laboratory, testified the gun had a number of safety features to prevent the gun from discharging accidentally and did not have a “hair trigger.”

Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct on momentary possession. Specifically, he asserts the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on his theory of the case, and alternatively, the court erred in failing to give the momentary possession instruction when requested by defendant because substantial evidence supported the defense and it was not inconsistent with defendant’s theory of the case. <Source>

Now the progressives want to disarm everybody…

March for Our Lives Proposes Confiscating Up to 117 Million Guns

March for Our Lives announced a new gun control plan on Wednesday that would potentially confiscate more than 100 million guns and implement other restrictions on the ownership of firearms.

[OCS: Out of the 393 million civilian-owned guns located in an estimated 120 million households, the total number of gun deaths is a statistical rounding error – with most of the deaths related to suicides, not criminal activities. So why punish the majority of American citizens and overturn the Second Amendment? It is not about preventing violence, but softening up the underbelly of America to make it more vulnerable to our enemies, both foreign and domestic.]

The plan, titled A Peace Plan for a Safer America, calls on the federal government to institute buybacks to reduce the number of civilian-owned guns in the United States. As the plan notes, last year the Small Arms Survey estimated there were more than 393 million civilian-owned guns in the country.

March for Our Lives supporters said the proposed buybacks are part of an intentionally provocative plan designed to upend American gun culture. Many of the ideas in the plan are decades-old favorites of gun control organizations. While the confiscation of more than 100 million firearms from Americans may be the most audacious goal, it is not the only idea in the plan. The group also called for a ban on ownership of firearms without a special license from the federal government and payment of licensing fees. The system briefly sketched out in the group's plan would require Americans, of whom about 120 million already report having a gun in their home, to have an in-person interview with law enforcement and provide references before the official would grant a license to purchase a firearm. The license would need to be renewed every year if granted.

The gun control group also called for a national registry of firearms sales, a ban on anyone under 21 possessing any firearms, expanding the categories of people prohibited from possessing firearms, limiting how many firearms Americans can buy each month, and legislating requirements on how Americans store their guns. The plan demands greater federal funding for various gun violence, domestic violence, and suicide prevention programs. It also calls on the president to declare a national emergency on gun violence and appoint a "National Director of Gun Violence Prevention."

[OCS: It is never about individuals being held responsible for their actions, it is about the progressive trial lawyers going after third-parties with deep pockets.]

The March for Our Lives plan also calls for the firearms industry to be held legally responsible for criminal acts committed by third parties using their products.

[OCS: The best reason for ensuring the reelection of President Trump and the appointment of another constitutional textualist on the Supreme Court when progressive fanatic Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg steps down.]

It asks the Supreme Court to "reexamine" its landmark gun rights ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that the city could not outright ban the ownership of handguns because the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. March for Our Lives said the next administration should institute a gun control litmus test for judicial nominees.

"The next generation of federal judges appointed by the President need to be champions of gun violence prevention and a different interpretation of the Second Amendment," the plan said. <Source>

Bottom line...

America needs to stay strong, to hold individuals, not the collective, responsible for their actions. Enough of this progressive socialist democrat claptrap.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


It is possible to be well-credentialed and well-intentioned and still be capable of causing significant misery and death …

Few individuals have ever heard about the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, let alone know that this particular group’s findings are often behind the reimbursement criteria of Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. By definition, evidence-based medicine is biased against "outliers" and senior citizens who are most vulnerable to chronic and/or life-threatening diseases during their later years. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that screenings for serious medical conditions are “contraindicated” or limited for senior citizens and those who are unlikely to benefit from the treatments suggested by an adverse screening finding.


What is the USPSTF?

The USPSTF is an independent panel of non-Federal experts that makes recommendations on clinical preventive services, such as screenings, counseling, and preventive medications, to primary care clinicians. USPSTF recommendations apply to people with no signs or symptoms of the disease, and are based on a rigorous, systematic review of peer-reviewed evidence. The group is funded, staffed, and appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

[OCS: While the panel’s findings are said to be targeted at primary care clinicians, it remains a fact that most federal and private insurers generally use these findings to justify their reimbursement policies or to make the insured and their physicians jump through hoops to get a screening authorized for payment.

Most peer-reviewed medical studies are garbage. One, the sample size is too small; two, comorbidities are often unaccounted for or uncontrolled; and three, are limited to those who routinely participate in the publishing process.]

USPSTF members are primary care providers (such as internists, pediatricians, family physicians, nurses, gynecologists/obstetricians, and health behavior specialists) who are experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine. Members are required to disclose any possible conflicts of interest for each topic under review. <Source>

[OCS: the panel does not appear to go beyond primary care physicians or those with expertise in medical economics, health care distribution, or administrative activities to include subject-matter experts.

There are no oncologists, no cancer surgeons, and no specialized interventional radiologists specializing in cancer on the board.]

Sample findings – Pancreatic cancer:

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force) today published a final recommendation statement on screening for pancreatic cancer. Based on the current evidence, the Task Force again recommends that adults without signs or symptoms should not be screened for pancreatic cancer.

While pancreatic cancer is rare, it can be deadly. It is the third most common cause of death from cancer in the United States. In most cases, pancreatic cancer is not found early enough to be treated effectively, and the likely outcomes are poor. Even when the cancer is found early and treated with surgery, the average survival is only 36 months.

“Pancreatic cancer is an uncommon, but devastating disease with low survival rates, even in those detected at early stages,” says Task Force member Chyke Doubeni, M.D., M.P.H. “Unfortunately, at the present time, screening for pancreatic cancer in people without any signs or symptoms would cause more harm than good and therefore should not be done.”


Sample findings -- Colorectal Cancer:

The decision to screen for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years should be an individual one, taking into account the patient’s overall health and prior screening history.

  • Adults in this age group who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit.
  • Screening would be most appropriate among adults who 1) are healthy enough to undergo treatment if colorectal cancer is detected and 2) do not have comorbid conditions that would significantly limit their life expectancy.


Sample findings – Lung Cancer:

Adults Aged 55-80, with a History of Smoking

The USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery.


Sample findings -- BRCA-Related Cancer

Women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutation …  The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with breast cancer susceptibility 1 and 2 (BRCA1/2) gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing.

Women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potential harmful BRCA1/2gene mutations … The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations.


The real problem with using peer-reviewed literature to make public policy is that if you are outside of the norm, you are out of luck unless you are wealthy or politically-connected…


Bottom line…

This is another way unaccountable individuals deeply influence federal policies. But even worse, the use of such panels, commissions, and boards inserts a clerical decision-maker or computer algorithm between you and your doctor. I cannot tell you how to assess the value of your life, whether or not you want to avoid significant pain to pass quietly into the night or want to fight with everything at your disposal to gain a few additional precious moments with your family. If there is any limitation to the healthcare you receive, it should be between you and your physicians and spiritual counselors. Not a clerk or a computer with an end-of-life predicting algorithm.

And, since we are on this unpleasant subject, make sure you have a will (why leave it to the government) and an advance directive designating your wishes in the case of incapacitation,

Be safe and be well.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


It appears the the 2020 Democrat nominee for the President of the United States is likely to be Elizabeth Warren based on current polling, sentiment, and disposition.

** Bernie Sanders is too old, radical, and a representation of the communist party which likes to pretend they are the Democratic Socialists of America.

** Joe Biden is too old, lacks physical stamina, cannot think fast on his feet, gaffe prone, and simply parrots the Obama lines.

** Kamala Harris is little more than an Obama-style empty suit who bends with the wind, flip-flopping and hiding her abysmal record in California.

** Pete Buttigieg is too young and inexperienced.

** The remaining candidates are little more than statistical footnotes.

Warren is radical enough for the party leftists, articulate, has a written plan for almost every contingency, and while burdened with faux American Indian background, appears to be a solid choice among radicals. However, Warren failed to be confirmed multiple times by the Senate for a position as the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which she masterminded out of whole cloth.

But Warren is probably not electable if she goes head-to-head with President Trump…

So it is likely that an “unannounced candidate” could still enter the race. The most likely of whom has a verifiable personal fortune ten times that of Donald Trump, verifiable accomplishments that exceed those of Donald Trump, is articulate and well-versed in the machinations of government, is loved by Wall Street, and is progressive enough to preside over a nanny-state. Yes, it is former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Bottom line…

With another Supreme Court nomination at stake, not so delicate negotiations with China and North Korea, issues with immigration, and the pending reports on Obama Administration officials, I think President Trump is likely to prevail.


We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


Stanford has always had a reputation as one of America’s premier schools, right up there with Yale, Harvard, and others.

Now we are finding that Stanford’s physics department may be implementing their own form of progressive indoctrination and affirmative action by offering physics classes designed explicitly around political correctness. Classes that will serve “underrepresented” students and concentrate on diversity and inclusion, including offering “modified” courses with supplemental assistance that will not be routinely provided to other physics students. One might go so far as to question whether grading standards will be relaxed to produce an “artificial win” for the physics department and the university itself.

The premise behind offering additional assistance appears to lie in the assumption that “students from underrepresented groups often don’t have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers.” Which begs the question, why were they admitted to an elite university when so many other less rigorous educational opportunities exist in the state, notably the California State Universities?


Making physics more inclusive at Stanford

[OCS: If one were to look at most physics classes, one might conclude that Asians and Indians were over-represented. But, that would assume that you buy-in to the progressive bullpucky that a minority needs to be represented in any endeavor in proportion to that minority’s percentage representation in the general populator or your organization is racist and lacks politically correct affirmative diversity and inclusion programs.

It was no surprise when, in 2016, a Stanford University survey of undergraduates revealed physics as among the least diverse departments at the university – also the case for physics as an academic field nationally. But, deeper analysis of the survey responses revealed a telling and crucial difference between the answers from incoming students and those on their way to graduation.

[OCS: It is not unusual for students who encounter rigorous and intense subject-matter to change their majors after the first or second year. Especially if most of one’s undergraduate two years is comprised mostly of introductory survey courses and preparation for upper division study. You often find that what you thought you liked is not really what you want to do with the rest of your life. So it is expected that most of the subject drop-outs will occur in the first two years.]

“Many students from all backgrounds and identities come to Stanford excited about physics, and this interest does not strongly depend on race or gender. But we lose a larger number of Black, Latinx and Native students, as well as women of all races, in the first two years of undergraduate study,” said Risa Wechsler, a professor of physics and of particle physics and astrophysics at Stanford University. “A lot of that is due to the lack of community and overall climate. People from underrepresented groups often do not feel welcome in physics classes.”

[OCS: Progressive identity politics rears is ugly head. Followed by a level of intolerance for those who do not embrace the establishment orthodoxy or challenge the fashionable science of the day.]

“In the last five to eight years, there’s been a growing awareness about the importance of identity within the physics community,” said Lauren Tompkins, assistant professor of physics and member of the Equity and Inclusion Committee. “Your identity affects your experience as a physicist and even the physics that you do. If we can acknowledge and understand that, it makes us better physicists.”

[OCS: In my mind, this class is the same as the remedial reading, English, and mathematics courses for incoming students who do not meet course prerequisites or who test at a lower level that their fellow students. One might ask, how were these students admitted and were they pre-destined for failure because they were unprepared?]

Physics 41E: The same as Physics 41: Mechanics, which is a required course for physics majors, but with added support. Students from underrepresented groups often don’t have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers. The difference in preparation is large enough that it may lead students to drop out of the major but small enough that the kind of support offered by this course can be enough to keep them in.

[OCS: This is one of those classes that could be summed up as, “So you want a career in physics?” and should not be institutionalized as a physics class, but as a series of “meet and greet” lectures sponsored by the various clubs on campus. Often these talks are a great place to meet working physicists – but the end result may be more motivational than instructional. Feel-good Physics 41.]

Physics 94SI: Diverse Perspectives in Physics: A seminar course, also initiated by Meyer and Patel, where physics faculty members from diverse backgrounds share the story of their lives and careers. This course meets over lunch and includes Q&A sessions after each presentation.

[OCS: More progressive claptrap where students are allowed to run the asylum and teachers and administrators are literally afraid to stand up to student or activist faculty bullying. This reminds me of Nobel Laureate Physicist Dick Feynman, who often observed that “knowing the name of something is not the same as knowing something.”]

Students should feel empowered to create positive change within the Stanford physics department and for the rest of their careers,” she said. “Over the past few years, undergraduate students have led the way toward a more inclusive climate in the physics community and I hope we can inspire the next generation of leaders to do the same.” <Source>

Race to the bottom (pun intended) …

Recently the progressive socialist democrat Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, indicated he wants to eliminate programs for gifted and talented students in New York schools because these programs perpetuate racial inequality – primarily because they’re comprised mostly of white and Asian students. Imagine the gross social effect of any educational system that deliberately attempts to build a curriculum based on the lowest common denominator? Where achievement and excellence in mastering subject-matter material are somehow symptomatic of racism that must be corrected at once.

Bottom line…

There is a fundamental flaw in the university’s logic. Physics and its language of mathematics are based on the sequential mastery of core concepts and the ability to manipulate those concepts to understand the physical world and to solve problems. If a student fails to learn these concepts in an acceptable order of progression, they will feel lost – especially among students who are experiencing lesser difficulty with the curricula. And, these underperforming students may likely come to feel less than welcome if they are consuming class time and teaching resources while they struggle. There is nothing as frustrating to a good student as students who are holding others back and disadvantaging those who are eager to move on. 

Physics, mathematics, and other such “hard science” subjects tend not to be “cliquey” get-togethers of friends, especially in a competitive environment. And, I am not aware that minority students, or for that matter, international students, are treated worse than other students. These subjects often are sole endeavors and not social activities. It’s perfectly acceptable to offer additional assistance to all students, but please do not pretend it is because of a “social need.”

Personally, I believe this is a program that is being driven by a few self-serving progressives who managed to get funding and are more about introducing the politically-correct ideas of the softer sciences rather than turning out top students. As you can see, all of the courses listed above are fundamental undergraduate classes, and they are struggling not to reveal the “remedial” nature of these undertakings.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


One of the notable observations during the bogus Trump-Collusion affair, is the apparent ease of foreign nationals, in some cases, nation-states who have overt hostility to the United States, can access our public officials. One also wonders if campaign funds and other off-book benefits are flowing to individual legislators who appear to be openly hostile to United States foreign policy and most un-American in their actions?

Now we are learning some of the background of H.R.2407 - Promoting Human Rights for Palestinian Children Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act – which appears to highlight and promote pure propaganda from the terrorists who control a foreign entity. Of course, it appears that the legislation is being promoted by some legislators with significant questions as to their loyalty to America and the possibility that they are either foreign agents or dupes of foreign agents.

These are not your typical “children” …


Let us first note that the word “children” has a much different meaning in the context of a foreign terrorist nation. Children are taught from an early age to hate their enemies and trained to kill or maim their enemies where possible. Because a child is young, does not mean they can’t be exploited to carry knives or other weapons – or even serve as suicide bombers – all for the greater glory of their God. Children taught from an early age that there is no honor greater than dying as a martyr for the cause.

What is the malignant purpose of the proposed legislation?

Other than slandering the name of Israel with a false and despicable narrative, the legislation is an attempt to build on existing federal legislation that denies federal funding to any entity that commits gross human rights violations. Anything which promotes terrorist propaganda and denies funding to Israel is a win for those who oppose the United States and human rights in general.

Particularly disingenuous is that regional actors with a history of child abuse and human rights violations are never mentioned, only Israel is singled out. This is reminiscent of the one-sided anti-Semitic, anti-Israel United Nations’ proclamations and condemnations that are routinely passed in the corrupt chambers of the United Nations.

An example of the objectionable rhetoric contained within the legislation…

Israel lawfully occupies Judea and Samaria and to pejoratively describe these lands as occupied is to perpetuate terrorist propaganda.  One of the basic errors made by Americans is to believe that other nations are similar to the United States and have constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Another is to project our values onto those who have never known democracy or have been free from brutality. 

H. R. 2407

To promote human rights for Palestinian children living under Israeli military occupation and require that United States funds do not support military detention, interrogation, abuse, or ill-treatment of Palestinian children, and for other purposes.

(4) In the Israeli-occupied West Bank, there are two separate legal systems, with Israeli military law imposed on Palestinians and Israeli civilian law applied to Israeli settlers.

[OCS: There is no “West Bank.” It is a designation of the British-mandated portion of the land west of the Jordan River that was ruled by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan until its lawful capture under the international laws of war by Israel.

On might expect two systems of law, one for those legally present (including Jews, Christians, and Arabs) and one to combat the omni-present terrorism to ensure safety and security beyond that which the civilian authorities can provide.]

(5) Approximately 2,900,000 Palestinians live in the West Bank, of which around 45 percent are children under the age of 18, who have lived their entire lives under Israeli military occupation.

[OCS: The military presence is to guarantee the safety and security of all of the law-abiding residents in the face of a persistent threat of terrorism.]

(6) Since 2000, more than 10,000 Palestinian children have been subject to the Israeli military court system.

[OCS: As we point out above, these are children in age only, not by indoctrination, training and motivation. You cannot make special provisions for children-soldiers/terrorists who can do as much damage as their adult counterparts.]

(7) Israeli security forces detain children under the age of 12 for interrogation for extended periods of time even though prosecution of children under 12 is prohibited by Israeli military law.

[OCS: Children or individuals caught perpetrating terrorism or suspected of terrorist activities? In most cases, the terrorists use children as media props and to solicit funding.]


(8) Human Rights Watch, in its World Report 2018, reported that Israeli Security Forces detained Palestinian children “often using unnecessary force, questioned them without a family member present, and made them sign confessions in Hebrew, which most did not understand.”

[OCS: Unfortunately, most of these narratives lack corroboration and come from those who routinely embellish the stories for self-aggrandizement or adults who relate these stories to reporters.]

(9) Human Rights Watch documented, in a July 2015 report titled “Israel: Security Forces Abuse Palestinian Children,” that such detentions also included the use of chokeholds, beatings, and coercive interrogation on children between the ages of 11 and 15 years.

[OCS: Again, one should suspect the use of the “documented.” Many of the so-called “findings” originate from suspect NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) with links to terrorist groups or the BDS (Boycott, Divestments, Sanctions) movement.

Much of this legislations findings can be traced to DCI-P (Defense for Children International-Palestine) which maintains ties with the Iran-freindly terrorist group PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.)

For those who want to source the findings for themselves, you may wish to read, “The NGOs that Wrote McCollum’s Legislation on Children’s Rights” from NGO Monitor, an NGO accountability organization.]

Click here to read the legislation and the legislative history.

Who are the representatives behind this militant and anti-Israel legislation?

The legislation was sponsored by Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4]  who represents Somali-dominated Minnesotastan which goes out of its way to accommodate Sharia law in contravention of the U.S. Constitution. If you wanted to see an example of self-segregation, refusal to assimilate, and growing political power – Minnesota is a good choice.

Bottom line…

No other nation than Israel mirrors the values and freedoms of the United States in the Middle East. No other country has been so besieged since its founding by its neighbors who represent a non-Western culture replete with human rights violations. And, had it not been for oil, the area outside of Israel would still be mired in the 12th Century with all of its ancient feuds.

For the progressive socialist Democrats to continue to accuse Israel, under continuing terrorist rocket attack, of human rights violations is both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. If not downright anti-Semitic. But, then again, the Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and the KKK.

The fact that Islamic terrorists can gain a voice in our Congress is a telling sign that Democrats cannot be trusted with the safety and security of the United States of America.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


Bill Maher, as a progressive comedian and political commentator, purports to hold a mirror up so that society can face itself. Unfortunately, as is the case with most progressive socialist democrats, they mistakenly hold up a clear pane of glass so that everybody can see the person behind the progressive talking points. And that, in the case of Bill Maher, is one ugly, hate-filled old man struggling to be hip and relevant in an age when America is under attack by those who are most un-American.


In this case, Maher’s comments on the passing of David Koch, a man who has contributed more to society than the collective majority of progressives, was hateful, even for a hatemonger of the first degree…

From HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher …

And now some funeral news to report.

Yesterday, David Koch, of the zillionaire Koch brothers died of prostate cancer.

I guess I am going to have to reevaluate my low opinion of prostrate cancer.

He was 79, and his family wishes it could be longer. But at least he lived long enough to see the Amazon catch fire.

Condolences poured in from all the politicians he owned.

And mourners are being asked in lieu of flowers to just leave their car engine running.

As for his remains, he is to be cremated and have his ashes blown into a child's lungs.

Now I know that these seem like harsh words and harsh jokes, but I am sure I will be condemned for them on Fox News which will portray Mr. Koch as a principled libertarian who believed in the free market,

He and his brother have done more than anybody to fund climate science deniers for decades.

So f*ck him. The Amazon is burning up. I'm glad he's dead, and I hope the end was painful.

What Bill Maher did not say …

While Bill Maher was busy trashing David Koch’s memory, the world found out that the so-called preeminent alarmist climate scientist, Michael Mann’s famous precipitous global warming“hockey stick”  was a scientific fraud based on the tree rings from a single Siberian Yamal larch tree (YADO61). And, when that did not produce the desired results, Mann deviously spliced another dataset on to his work to create the “unprecedented” rise in global temperatures. This single graph was the iconic “hockey stick” representation of the catastrophic global warming that demanded urgent action to avoid a planetary catastrophe, a repudiation of capitalism in favor of socialism, bigger government, and the reduction in personal freedoms.

Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick graph widely disseminated in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 2001 and show to be a deceptive statistical sh*t show in 2003.


[Mann’s graph purports to show an “unprecedented” spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability. Canadian statisticians debunked the “hockey stick” in 2003 and their work was upheld by two Congressional expert panels in 2006. ]


The MBH98 hockey stick-shaped NH temperature index discussed here has been extremely influential in discussions of 20th century global warming. Together with a pre-1400 extension derived in Mann et. al. (1999) and a spliced instrumental temperature series, this index figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (IPCC 2001) and numerous other publications.

However, the dataset used to make this construction contained collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects. These errors and defects substantially affect the temperature index.

Although not all of the dataset could be audited, it was possible to prepare a data base with substantially improved quality control, by using the most recent data and collating it correctly, by avoiding arbitrary filling in or truncation of data and by computing principal components using standard algorithms.

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick; ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT; VOLUME 14; NUMBER 6 (2003) ISSN 0958-305X  <Source>

It appears that a verifiable Medieval warm period in the 15th century was artificially eliminated from the erroneous graph using statistical manipulation. When the chart was reconstructed without the apparent mistakes, trickery, and substitutions, the Medieval warm period exceeded the purported “unprecedented” warmth attributable to carbon dioxide-linked global warming in the 20th Century. (The carbon dioxide causality is also a misrepresentation.)

Before and after…


Put up or shut up…

Enter Tim Ball, one of the preeminent “climate deniers” who remarked that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” On March 25, 2011, Mann initiated a lawsuit against Ball for defamation. During the course of the case, Ball and his attornies repeatedly demanded access to Mann’s data, computer code, and the underlying methodology. For years the case dragged on-and-on as Mann steadfastly refused to provide his data. Mann claimed that the data was “proprietary” or belonged to a third-party. Mann is not exceptional in this regard because the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (the home of the Climate-gate emails) and others have exerted similar claims.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered that the [defamation] claim made by the Plaintiff [Ball] be dismissed and that “Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed.” While Mann can still appeal the ruling, it is unlikely that any court will go beyond the fact that Mann refused to provide the subpoenaed evidence that would prove either the truth or falsity of Ball’s claims. For Mann, perhaps it is better to be civilly judged as recalcitrant or incompetent rather than face potential criminal charges of fraud.

A few pertinent observations.

One, both Ball and Mann are linked to climate controversy.

Two, the court did not rule on the validity of the hockey stick data, methodology, or any scientific issue. The ruling to dismiss the case appears to be solely based on the fact that Mann refused to produce his own exculpatory data.

Three, Ball apparently never commented on anything other than Mann’s alleged role in the stolen Climate-gate emails.

But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps" to "Keith's" graph, in order to "hide the decline". Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the "hockey stick" (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted – without explanation – with a line based on the quite different data of measured global temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up. <Source>

[OCS: In this context, Ball was absolutely right in suggesting that Mann should be held responsible for a deception that has resulted in massive worldwide expenditures and the loss of personal freedoms.]

Four, Mann appears to be well-financed, and it is possible legal action could continue.

Five, Mann was cleared of academic improprieties by a dodgy Penn State internal investigation that appears to be deeply flawed. The same Penn State whose internal investigation appeared to clear pedophile football coach Jerry Sandusky.

Bottom line…

I guess I will have to give up, join the other side, and admit that there is such a thing as dangerous Mann-made global warming.

We are so screwed.

-- steve 

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


There was a time when the internet was a free and open collaboration of all who wished to participate. A time when Google’s mantra was “Don’t Be Evil.” It was all explained in Google’s August 18, 2004 Amendment Number Nine to the Form S-1 Registration Statement filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served—as shareholders and in all other ways—by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company.

Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating. We also display advertising, which we work hard to make relevant, and we label it clearly. This is similar to a well-run newspaper, where the advertisements are clear and the articles are not influenced by the advertisers’ payments. We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see.  <Source>    

As big money entered the arena in the collection and sale of information and advertising, the internet started to coalesce into a number of large platforms that offered freely available access in exchange for access to an individual’s information. Then something changed, it was no longer about free and open access, but about lock-ins to proprietary platforms that were producing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Big business came to the internet and at some point in time in 2015 Google abandoned their “Don’t Be Evil” mantra in favor of “"Do the right thing" as its motto.

The question is, do the right thing for who?

Like all bureaucracies, be they in the government, commercial sector, or non-profits, the prime directive is preserve the organization, ensure increasing revenue or funding, preserve the current leadership, and enforce the hierarchy, and exclude troublemakers and those that challenge the will of the leadership or the orthodoxy. There is no doubt that corporations are influenced by the government: by legislation, by regulatory agencies, by government tax relief, grants, and contracts. Likewise, we find many former government agents, operatives, and government employees embedded in corporations where they are more likely to assist their friends “wink-wink” than not. All off-book with zero accountability.

So why am I concerned with the machinations at Google and the Democrat National Committee…

[OCS: Could Google, with a number of former Obama activists and operators on staff, alter the results of their search algorithm enough to impact a candidate?]

Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million

Representative Tulsi Gabbard, the long-shot presidential candidate from Hawaii, said in a federal lawsuit that Google infringed on her free speech when it briefly suspended her campaign’s advertising account after the first Democratic debate in June.

The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in a federal court in Los Angeles, is believed to be the first time a presidential candidate has sued a major technology firm.

In a twist that reflects Ms. Gabbard’s unorthodox political views, the claim that her speech was stifled by Google is similar to complaints made over the last year in Republican circles. Few Democrats have raised similar concerns around the world for a wide variety of issues, including their influence on political debate, their handling of consumer data, and the aggressive way they compete with smaller companies. <Source> For those wishing to read the lawsuit, it can be found here.

[OCS: It appears that the Democrat National Committee may not  have learned anything when they attempted to screw over Bernie Sanders in favor of their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton.]

Gabbard Victimized by DNC's Dubious Debate Criteria

Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.

Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates -- especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”

What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable. Months ago, party chieftains issued a list of “approved sponsoring organizations/institutions” for polls that satisfy their criteria for debate admittance. Not appearing on that list is the Boston Globe, which sponsored a Suffolk University poll published Aug. 6 that placed Gabbard at 3%. The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month. <Source>

It appears that the DNC has anointed Bernie “The Red” Sanders and Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren being the top two contenders – with the ultimate goal of having Elizabeth Warren and a strong Vice President face President Donald Trump. The wild card is Kamala Harris who apparently needs to be protected from an increasingly popular Tulsi Gabbard.

What will the social media platforms do in the lead-up to 2020?

From recent news stories, we have seen the social media unduly punish conservatives and those who are attacking progressive socialist democrats. So, can they be trusted not to put their greasy fingers on the scale and influence the election?

Bottom line…

Never before in the history of the United States has the mainstream media been so overtly hostile towards a President of the United States. And, never before has an administration attempted to rig and election or overthrow a duly elected President.

The only antidote to real or imagined voter manipulation is to exceed any opposition vote by an overwhelming margin and produce an incontrovertible mandate that affirms capitalism over socialism.

I am waiting for the Attorney General Barr’s report on the Obama Administration to shock the conscience of all Americans whether or not individuals are punished for their criminal actions.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


When it came to the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as Obamacare, the academic pointy-heads missed a few significant facts … 

*Academic personnel are almost always biased towards socialisms, class warfare, and managing adversity to accrete power rather than expanding the opportunities for more systemic participation. Politicians, particularly progressive politicians, are almost always part of the problem and contribute little to the solution. For the most part, Members of Congress no longer craft legislation, but use foundations, advocacy groups, and staff to craft the actual legislation which they then pass only in outline form; and then cede the creation and enforcement of administrative rules and regulations to the Executive Branch. They do not read those complicated 1000-page bills that are presented for their vote within days of the vote.  

* Medical personnel are not machines with infinite capacity, therefore it is impossible to add millions of insured individuals to any healthcare system without a corresponding increase in physicians, facilities, diagnostic devices, medical personnel, and durable medical equipment.  

* Waste, fraud, and abuse is designed into the medical delivery system by design on behalf of politically-connected special interests seeking monopolistic advantages, guaranteed profits, and few consequences for bad acts. It is a trivial off-the-shelf system that could be used to track medical services globally as simply as credit card purchases are tracked. Social security numbers still do not have a unique, check-digited structure and the Internal Revenue Service which processes millions of bogus or overlapping Social Security numbers still has no formal mechanism to flag those numbers for scrutiny when obtaining other federal services.

The end result of any cost-controlled or constrained system is always rooted in the three big claims outcomes: denial, delay, and death. The interim result is rationing.

Which brings us to the subject of today's blog, that the progressives, or statists as you will, have little or no regard for those who have little or no potential to contribute to the regulated activities of the state. In this instance, senior citizens who appear to consume goods and service, and disproportionate medical care at their end-of-life, and correspondingly contribute little to the benefit of the state.

Did this man want to systematically deny seniors advanced care based on a formula? You bet!

Ezekiel “E-Z Kill” Emanuel



A doctor and medical ethicist argues life after 75 is not worth living
Ezekiel Emanuel questions “whether our consumption is worth our contribution” in old age.

   In October 2014, Ezekiel Emanuel published an essay in the Atlantic called “Why I Hope to Die at 75.” Because Emanuel is a medical doctor and chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s department of medical ethics and health policy, as well as a chief architect of Obamacare, the article stirred enormous controversy.

Emanuel vowed to refuse not only heroic medical interventions once he turned 75, but also antibiotics and vaccinations. His argument: older Americans live too long in a diminished state, raising the question of, as he put it, “whether our consumption is worth our contribution.”

[OCS: In a socialist state, your worth is proportional to your ability to provide for the collective. If you offer no meaningful contribution, your are considered a drag on society and an unnecessary consumer of finite natural resources. One of the basic tenets of population control, eugenics, and euthanasia. All couched in terms of “quality of life.”]

Emanuel, now 62, talked with me about the social implications of longevity research and why he isn’t a fan of extending life spans. I was particularly curious to get his reaction to several promising new anti-aging drugs.

Q: It’s five years since you published the essay. Any second thoughts as you near the deadline?

A: Not really! [Laughing]

Q: You announced that you wouldn’t take any measures to prolong your life after 75. Isn’t that an extreme position?

A: First of all, it’s not an extreme position. I’m not going to die at 75. I’m not committing suicide. I’m not asking for euthanasia. I’m going to stop taking medications with the sole justification that the medication or intervention is to prolong my life.

[OCS: Emanuel has a right to his opinion, but when it is codified into a law; that requires further examination.  Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) was to be a “scientific” method of managing the costs of healthcare, mostly by developing formulas and protocols involving who would receive care under Obamacare. If you are curious to see how Obamacare incentivizes hospitals to spend less on seniors, you may wish to read: TITLE III—IMPROVING THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF HEALTH CARE; Subtitle A—Transforming the Health Care Delivery System; PART I—LINKING PAYMENT TO QUALITY OUTCOMES UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM; SEC. 3001. HOSPITAL VALUE-BASED PURCHASING PROGRAM.

It all boils down to how the government should reimburse insurers while mandating the their limited resources be used to treatments that will be cost effective and do the most good for the most people.

If you really want to scare yourself silly or make yourself sick, check out a cost effectiveness formula that uses a metric called the quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, has already laid the intellectual groundwork for overt rationing in a 2009 Lancet article, “Principles For Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.” Dr. Emanuel proposes rationing based on a combination of factors including patient age, expected “quality adjusted life years,” and the patient’s “instrumental value” to “society.” Given that the government would be making (and paying for) these rationing decisions, value to “society” will become “value as determined by the government.”

One can just imagine a number of technocrats determining that some elderly individuals are not worth anything … and giving them the “other” blue pill.]

Q. But it’s called “Why I hope to die …”

"The world will exist fine if you happen to die. Great people, maybe even people greater than you, like Newton and Shakespeare and Euler—they died."

A. As you probably know better than everyone else, it’s editors that choose titles and not authors.

I often get, from the people who want to dismiss me, “You know, my Aunt Nellie, she was clear as a bell at 94, and blah-blah-blah …” But as I said in the article, there are outliers. There are not that many people who continue to be active and engaged and actually creative past 75. It’s a very small number.

Q: You suggest that one effect of our obsession with longevity is that it diverts attention from the health and well-being of children.

A: Lots of presidents and lots of politicians say, “Children are our most valuable resource.” But we as a country don’t behave like that. We don’t invest in children the way we invest in adults, especially older adults. One of the statistics I like to point out is if you look at the federal budget, $7 goes to people over 65 for every dollar for people under 18.

Q: What’s wrong with simply enjoying an extended life?

A: These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life.

Q: Are the anti-aging drugs in development just a bid for immortality by the back door?

A: Certainly. You listen to these people and their lingo is not “We’re just trying to get rid of problems.” Right? It’s “We want to live longer.” I notice that almost all of these—not all of them, but many of them—are based out in California, because God forbid the world should continue to exist and I’m not part of it!

The world will exist fine if you happen to die. Great people, maybe even people greater than you, like Newton and Shakespeare and Euler—they died. And guess what? The world’s still there.

Q: What message do you think it sends when iconic innovators in Silicon Valleypeople like Peter Thiel and Larry Ellisonare clearly fascinated by life extension and …

A: No, no—they’re fascinated by their life extension! This idea that they’re fascinated with life extension [in general]? Naw, they’re fascinated by their life extension. They find it hard to even contemplate the idea that they are going to die and the world is going to be fine without them.

Q: Is it really a problem if one of these drugs like metformin shows a modest life-extending effect?

A: I think it would be, especially if what ends up happening is it adds a few years of life. Then the question is: What are the downsides of that? There may be a cognitive downside, maybe a little more mental confusion.

It’s very funny—every time I talk to people, it’s like, “Oh, yeah, definitely quality of life over quantity of life.” But when push comes to shove, it’s really quantity of life. “I might be a little more confused, but I’ll take that extra year!” 

Read more at: <Source>

Bottom line...

Inform yourself, inform your family, friends, co-workers that when they vote for progressive socialist democrats and their single-payer healthcare system, they deny you a chance to enjoy what little time you may have left after a life of suffering and hard work. They deny those late-in-life parents an opportunity to see their grandchildren prosper and have children. They are playing God with your life for the benefit of the state.

Talk about the opioid crisis? You will find that this is little more than a political talking point. The progressive socialist democrats, especially those interested in population control, eugenics, and de-industrialization, love this opportunity to help the planet heal. And, this is nothing compared to the coming opioid crisis where the government mandates pain relief pills for those who are denied hip and knee replacements to return these individuals to an active but “non-productive” (by government standards” life.

You do not see Americans going to Canada, Britain, and Cuba for quality healthcare delivered in optimum conditions. But those are the systems that progressive socialist democrats are trying to emulate. For those who point to Switzerland or the Scandinavian countries, remember America has the largest, most diverse population on the face of the Earth. We are an exceptional nation and one that has done more for society than all of the other counties combined.

Try to emigrate to Australia if you are obese or have a medical issue…

The Migration Health Requirement

3.3 The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) suggests that there are a number of reasons behind the need for a Health Requirement. These are to:

* protect the Australian community from public health and safety risks;

* contain public expenditure on health care and community services; and

* safeguard the access of Australian citizens to health care and community services that are in short supply. <Source>

Fortunately, we can avoid that fate by avoiding voting for progressive socialist democrats and anyone who proposes a single-payer health system or revitalization of Obamacare.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Ever since Donald Trump’s historic escalator ride into history as a presidential candidate, the mainstream media has been overwhelmingly dismissive of Trump’s achievements and spent 2+ years peddling a “fake news” story of Trump-Russia collusion. The media appearing to be little more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. Even when sworn testimony and official document disclosures revealed that the collusion story was a product of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and a “worse-than-Watergate” conspiracy within the highest ranks of the Obama Administration.

When the Russia collusion story fell apart in the disinfecting sunlight, the media ignored the findings and pivoted to charges of racism. Primarily to protect their Black and Hispanic base that saw record employment gains under the Trump Administration and that Donald Trump did the unspeakable – calling out Democrats for failing to improve their own districts while pursuing corrupt and lucrative careers as Washington swamp rats while real rats infested their district.

The New York Times has now revealed a document instructing its personnel to view everything through a racial lens and to continue their attack on Trump with aggressive reporting. Apparently, truth and objectivity have left the building.

Ignoring that ordinary Americans are tired of all of the racial rhetoric that started with the Obama Administration, the New York Times and their media followers continue stoking the flames of racism, with the New York Times has embarked on what they call their “1619” project.

The New York Times Magazine's new 1619 Project is a special edition that reframes American history around one date: August 1619, when the first slave ship arrived on America's shores. "The Fourth of July in 1776 is regarded by most Americans as the country's birthday," says an introduction on the Times' website. "But what if we were to tell you that the country's true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August 1619?" The project, released online Wednesday and in print on Sunday, outlines its thesis: "No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the years of slavery that followed." <Source>

It is amazing that the New York Times continues lecturing Americans on racism and antisemitism while employing a clearly anti-Semitic political editor, Tom Wright-Piersanti, whose tweets targeted Jews, Asians, Indians, and other minority groups. The height of hypocrisy, right up there with the "Gray Lady" trying to relitigate our founding documents.  

When racism did not seem to be enough, it appears that the progressive mainstream media turned to an attempt to push America into a recession, real or imaginary – all the while proclaiming they did not want to hurt America or Americans…

Democrats see opening on economy, resist cheering recession

[OCS: This is the story that is being offered by the Associated Press news agency to their 1300+ subscribers in the media, including most, if not all, of the major newspapers and broadcasters…]

PROLE, Iowa (AP) — Campaigning under the stifling August sun, Joe Biden assailed President Donald Trump’s trade war with China, accusing him of squandering a strong economy and putting Americans’ financial security at risk.

[OCS: But the progressives loudly claim that they do not wish harm for America and Americans, when the evidence belies their assertions…]

But he was quick to add that he was not hoping for the worst.

“I never wish for a recession. Period,” the former vice president and current Democratic presidential candidate told reporters in Prole, Iowa.

[OCS: Two-faced hypocrites …]

Biden’s comments highlight the delicate balance for Democrats as the U.S. economy flashes recession warning signs. In town halls and speeches across the country this week, candidates leveled blame on Trump, arguing that his aggressive and unpredictable tariff policies were prompting gloomy economic forecasts. Yet they also strained to avoid the appearance of cheering for a downturn that would inflict financial pain on millions of Americans, but potentially help their party’s political fortunes in 2020.

[OCS: What the progressive socialist democrats really fear…]

For more than two years, the combination of solid growth, low unemployment, and a rising stock market has been a bulwark for Trump, helping him maintain the support of many independents and moderate Republicans who are turned off by his incendiary statements and pugnacious personality. According to a new Associated Press-NORC poll, a higher percentage of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the economy than his overall job performance. <Source>

The important stories in the news portray President Trump as a thoughtless, reckless narcissist who has sparked an unnecessary trade war with China. What they don’t say is that China has engaged in demonstrable theft of military secrets and commercial trade secrets which they employed to improve their military and economy. China has subsidized industries to dump cheap products into the United States, causing the loss of entire industries and thousands of jobs. China is manipulating its currency to ensure that Americans turn to China for trade, while simultaneously restricting American companies from Chinese market that exceed the size of the American marketplace. Or that China continues its hostile actions in the disputed areas of the South China Sea with the goal of crippling international shipping. Yes, we find one man battling the evil empire on his own, even though some close associates in his administration continue to leak sensitive and classified negative information to the media.

While Wall Street Cheers …

It is no secret that the Wall Street Wizards thrive on chaos and confusion to drive their brokerage enterprises. Without volatility, sparked by real or imaginary stories, nobody earns trading profits. And the idea of a trade war is an excellent motivator for foreign capital to seek the safety and security of their assets in the United States.

Recession Warnings Music to the Ears of Democrats

It's the dreaded "inverted Treasury yields," and Chicken Littles in the financial industry are all of a sudden issuing dire warnings of a coming recession.

What in God's name is an "inverted Treasury yield"?

Yields on two-year and 10-year Treasury notes inverted early Wednesday, a market phenomenon that shows investors want more in return for short-term government bonds than they are for long-term bonds.

It's the first time that has happened since the Great Recession and it can be an indication that investors have lost faith in the soundness of the U.S. economy.

Yeah, what he said. I wouldn't know an inverted Treasury yield from a kangaroo -- which makes me economically smarter than just about every liberal in the country. But I know crapola when I hear it.

After a big sell-off by the amateurs -- allowing the pros to make an absolute killing in the market -- stocks are stabilizing because ordinary people are still spending like mad.

Recessions are as much about perception as they are about the numbers. If analysts were trying to start a panic with their "inverted Treasury yields," they're going to have to do better than that. Americans are apparently ignoring them as well, as they continue to spend and spend. <Source>

About those indicators and Federal Reserve machinations…

You hear about a yield curve inversion, but few explain that the infamous recession signal has failed about one in three times and that this time the inversion appears to be caused by falling long-term rates, not rising short-term rates.

You hear about Donald Trump fighting with the Federal Reserve, portrayed in the media as an oracle of financial wisdom. Considering the damage the Federal Reserve has done to the American economy time-and-time again with their mismanagement of our economy; one should take such announcements with a grain of salt. Consider the real causes of a recession: one, significantly higher interest rates (which does not appear to be an issue at this time); two, a major increase in energy prices which previously were caused by geopolitical turmoil (we are now energy independent); and three, the idiocy of the Federal Reserve (which is still possible).

Even now, the Federal Reserve, which is a private corporation and not a government agency, is considering how to legally manipulate our economy through something known as “Yield Curve Control.”  Basically, instead of reducing short-term rates to zero, the Federal Reserve would target select longer-term rates and purchase those long-term securities to keep them from rising above an arbitrary target set by the Fed. Can you say “Quantitative Easing” in sheep’s clothing? Essentially while quantitative easing saw the Fed buying specific dollar amounts of securities, under yield curve control, the Fed would be targeting yield rates. The scheme is not without risk, and given the number of mistakes the Fed has made in the past, one cannot discount the idiocy of the Fed.

The craziness of the market…

Has anyone considered that most tech stock valuations are unsupported by actual profits and seem to exist on valuations produced by the “greater fool” theory where the enterprise is valued at the last price of an investment round? Has anyone considered that billions of dollars evaporate from market capitalizations of legitimate companies when Amazon floats a press release about partnering with Warren Buffett in healthcare or purchases a pharmacy operation? Perception drives the market.

So why should we not consider that the progressive media has the power and the motivation to cause marketplace disruptions to aid and abet the socialist agenda of the progressive socialist democrats?

Bottom line…

It is time that Americans start evaluating what the progressive mainstream media is publishing and broadcasting. It is time that Americans begin evaluating the actions, not the rhetoric, of progressive socialist democrat politicians. And, it is time that Americans start punishing those who have done so much damage to America. Either at the ballot box or in the marketplace, Americans must be mindful that our enemies, both foreign and domestic, walk among us – pretending to like us until they plunge the knife into our exposed backs.

Remember, they are not reporting the news, they are pursuing their toxic agenda.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


Have you ever wondered how progressive socialist democrat politicians can stand before a crowd and give an extemporaneous speech without notes?

The first step is to create an outline that can be customized to your audience. You need not provide specifics, but if you can remember some keywords and concepts, that will be enough. The difficult part is crafting the laugh lines and developing the timing to use them without awkwardness. Likewise, you can always throw in a few local stories that were provided by your advance team or have your staff glance through a few older newspapers – remember you do not want to make news, you want to reveal tragedy or success.

So, in the interests of political discourse, here is my cheat sheet for the standard progressive socialist democrat speech.


Now for some magic words, phrases, and concepts.

* Donald Trump is the devil.

* Donald Trump may have mental health issues.

* It’s Donald Trump’s fault that …

* Donald Trump should have anticipated that …

* Donald Trump will start a war.

* Everybody has a right to healthcare. (Medicare for All).

* Everybody has a right to dignity and cannot be illegal. (Open Borders).

* Ignore the rockets falling in Israel. Israel is the oppressor.

* We are not socialists or communists, we are “Democratic Socialists” and there is a difference, trust me.

* Class warfare (use wealth, race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and remind them your friend is a tranny.)

Bottom line…

What can I say but it’s all bullshit and bafflegab.

BTW – The distinguished Hank Brown had a perfect summary of Joe Biden. “To hear him described as a moderate could happen only in Washington, D.C. I never observed in him the qualities of intellect, vision, exceptional integrity, or savvy that are required in an effective president. I will be surprised if he survives the primaries. <Source>

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell