DEMOCRAT PROJECTION

Once again, blaming the GOP for the actions they have taken or are taking…

Biden-vote-1

From Biden's speech in Atlanta, Georgia, where massive election irregularities have been uncovered.

"It’s no longer about who gets to vote; it’s about making it harder to vote.  It’s about who gets to count the vote and whether your vote counts at all
It’s not hyperbole; this is a fact."  <Source>

And Joe Biden should know because he hung with the segregationists and members of the Ku Klux Klan when he first came to Congress. 

 

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



CHICAGO'S RACIST RED LIGHTS?

Disparate impact is a tool used by social justice warriors to “prove” that systemic racism exists without “proof” or “intent.”

Basically, disparate impact is a statistical lie used to prove that discrimination has occurred in a protected class because the percentage of class members affected greatly exceeds their class representation in the general population. It is statistically invalid because the process ignores “confounding variables,” which are unmeasured variables that impact both the cause and effect of the variable being measured – and can cause invalid results.

RRTC

Chicago’s “Race-Neutral” Traffic Cameras Ticket Black and Latino Drivers the Most

When then-Mayor Richard M. Daley ushered in Chicago’s red-light cameras nearly two decades ago, he said they would help the city curb dangerous driving. “This is all about safety, safety of pedestrians, safety of other drivers, passengers, everyone,” he said.

[OCS: Of course, this is one of those big government lies. When municipalities saw that red light cameras were cash cows, they ignored credible studies showing that the cameras were marginally effective in reducing accidents and could be the proximate cause of rear-end collisions as drivers jam on their brakes at the last second to avoid a red light camera ticket.]

But for all of their safety benefits, the hundreds of cameras that dot the city — and generate tens of millions of dollars a year for City Hall — have come at a steep cost for motorists from the city’s Black and Latino neighborhoods. A ProPublica analysis of millions of citations found that households in majority Black and Hispanic ZIP codes received tickets at around twice the rate of those in white areas between 2015 and 2019.

The consequences have been especially punishing in Black neighborhoods, which have been hit with more than half a billion dollars in penalties over the last 15 years, contributing to thousands of vehicle impoundments, driver’s license suspensions and bankruptcies, according to ProPublica’s analysis.

[OCS: If the city is truly placing cameras at dangerous points, where is the analysis showing that the minority community is generating traffic infractions at a rate that is above the general population and deserving of extra enforcement? One might also make this case for murder and other serious crime in Chicago and similar inner cities.]

“We felt the brunt of it the way white people didn’t,” said Olatunji Oboi Reed, a longtime activist for racial equity in transportation in Chicago who has received a handful of camera tickets over the years. “Fortunately, I’ve always been in a situation where I can survive financially, unlike many Black and brown people in the city; one ticket is throwing their whole finances in a hurricane.”

[OCS: Many municipalities have removed certain red light cameras, primarily because the revenue generated does not exceed their cost of operation or they have been ruled ineffective by the legislature – not because of any racial or socio-economic impacts.]

Similar racial and income disparities in camera ticketing have been documented elsewhere. In Rochester, New York, officials eliminated the city’s red-light camera program in 2016 in part because motorists from low-income neighborhoods received the most tickets and the financial harm outweighed any safety benefits. Miami ended its program in 2017 amid complaints from low-income residents who felt unfairly burdened by the fines. And in Washington, D.C., racial justice advocates are researching the city’s camera-ticketing program after a local think tank in 2018 and The Washington Post last year found that cameras in Black neighborhoods issued a disproportionate share of tickets there.

In Chicago, officials have known of disparities since at least April 2020, when a pair of professors at the University of Illinois Chicago shared initial research showing that cameras send the most tickets to predominantly Black ZIP codes. The city then hired them to study the issue further.

Six months later, Lightfoot — who campaigned in part on ending what she called the city’s “addiction” to fines and fees — proposed that Chicago expand camera ticketing by lowering the speeds at which cameras will issue citations. Lightfoot called it a public safety measure, especially in light of a spike in traffic fatalities during the pandemic, but many observers called it a money grab. The City Council approved the measure as part of the 2021 annual budget. <Source>

Notice they are not adjusting traffic fines downward, just using taxpayer funds to pay what they can’t collect… 

Gov. Gavin Newsom Announces California Will Eliminate Traffic Debt For Low-Income People Owed Since 2015

The budget proposal calls for a $300 million fund from the federal government’s American Rescue Plan to support relief for low-income Californians through a one-time debt forgiveness program eliminating debt owed on traffic and non-traffic infraction tickets issued between Jan. 1, 2015 and June 30, 2021. <Source>

Rather than forgiving the fines and writing-off the amount owed, they want the taxpayers to pay the uncollectible tickets.

Bottom line…

If the cameras are ineffective in reducing accidents, there is no justification for their existence. Many cities have ticket forgiveness programs or allow the courts to adjust amounts owed. The real crime is that everyone has their fingers in the pot.

California speeding tickets

The basic fine is determined purely by your speed at the moment you were stopped.

  • Over the speed limit by 1 to 15 mph – $35
  • Over the speed limit by 16 to 25 mph – $70
  • Over the speed limit by 26-99 mph – $100
  • Exceeding the speed limit by 100 miles per hour – $200.

All traffic citations in California are subject to a 20% fee for all drivers – no exceptions. In addition, you’ll have to pay $40 in court fees and $35 for your conviction assessment. Additional costs may apply to some drivers, including:

  • Court Penalty Assessment – 70% of your base fine
  • State Penalty Assessment – 100% of your base fine
  • Night Court Assessment – $1
  • Penalty for DNA Identification Fund – 40% of your base fine
  • Assessment of a State Court Construction Penalty – 50% of your base fine
  • Penalty for Emergency Medical Services – $4.

Time to stop the theft of your hard-earned dollars to support a bloated, out-of-control government pandering to identity groups to gain political power.

BTW: Most red-light cameras do not catch as many vehicles running red lights as they do vehicles making illegal right turns on red lights.

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



HILLARY CLINTON 2024: MEDIA CLICKBAIT TO GENERATE AN AUDIENCE & REVENUE

In what universe would a political party promote a candidate who is a provably corrupt liar whose political schemes and machinations have cost Americans millions of dollars and actual American lives in Benghazi, Libya, and elsewhere?

Clinton-x

There are two answers that come readily to mind.

The progressive communist democrats have no viable national candidates and an abysmal record on foreign and domestic policies.

The media needs heroes and villains to generate controversy, translating into audience and revenues.

Now that the media moguls and tech tyrants have shown they are willing to censor or cancel their users to promote a political agenda or protect an existing narrative, the progressive communist democrats count on the suppression of Hillary Clinton’s negatives while excoriating former President Donald Trump. At the same time promoting false narratives and outright lies.

Before reading a piece on Hillary Clinton in the Wall Street Journal consider its dishonest source...

Douglas Schoen and Hillary's slimy pollsters (September 27, 2007)

A pollster with long-standing ties to the Clintons boosts Hillary's candidacy while pretending to be an independent analyst.

But Schoen's problems go beyond mere establishment-perpetuating ideology. In light of the importance of perceptions of polling success for the Clinton campaign, Schoen -- ever since he left the Penn firm -- has been holding himself out as an independent polling analyst for Rasmussen Reports and other media venues, concealing his long-standing ties to the Clintons and writing one ostensibly objective analysis after the next which has no purpose other than to depict Clinton's candidacy as an inevitability. <Source>

From a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece…

Hillary Clinton’s 2024 Election Comeback (Douglas E. Schoen and Andrew Stein -- January 11, 2021)

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have become unpopular. It may be time for a change candidate.

A perfect storm in the Democratic Party is making a once-unfathomable scenario plausible: a political comeback for Hillary Clinton in 2024.

Several circumstances—President Biden’s low approval rating, doubts over his capacity to run for re-election at 82, Vice President Kamala Harris’s unpopularity, and the absence of another strong Democrat to lead the ticket in 2024—have created a leadership vacuum in the party, which Mrs. Clinton viably could fill.

She is already in an advantageous position to become the 2024 Democratic nominee. She is an experienced national figure who is younger than Mr. Biden and can offer a different approach from the disorganized and unpopular one the party is currently taking.

If Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022, Mrs. Clinton can use the party’s loss as a basis to run for president again, enabling her to claim the title of “change candidate.”

Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Mrs. Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to help her decide whether or not to run for president again. She recently warned of the electoral consequences in the 2022 midterms if the Democratic Party continues to align itself with its progressive wing and urged Democrats to reject far-left positions that isolate key segments of the electorate.

Given the likelihood that Democrats will lose control of Congress in 2022, we can anticipate that Mrs. Clinton will begin shortly after the midterms to position herself as an experienced candidate capable of leading Democrats on a new and more successful path.

If Democrats want a fighting chance at winning the presidency in 2024, Mrs. Clinton is likely their best option. <Source>

How corrupt or crazy do you need to consider Hillary Clinton a viable 2024 candidate.

Here comes the echo chamber…

Democratic operatives say Hillary Clinton is 'best option' for party to win 2024 election

Two Democratic operatives see an opening for Hillary Clinton to run again for president in 2024.

A commentary article published in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday makes the case that a "perfect storm" is brewing in the Democratic Party, including low approval numbers for President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as questions about whether Biden, now 79, will be viable to run for a second term.

All this creates a "leadership vacuum," according to Douglas Schoen, founder and partner of Schoen Cooperman Research, a polling and consulting firm whose past clients include Bill Clinton and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Andrew Stein, a former New York City Council president, Manhattan borough president, and state assemblyman. <Source>

Bottom line…

It is my personal opinion that Hillary Clinton is a criminal and an as-yet unindicted co-conspirator in the criminal conspiracy that interfered with two presidential elections (2016 and 2020) and other crimes committed at her direction by a cadre of acolytes while at the State Department.

Time to watch the Communist Chinese and the back-door flow of funds into a Clinton candidacy.

We are being screwed again.

-- 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



KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF MY INBOX

It is tragically ironic that the New York Times, the progressive communist democrat propaganda media outlet, continues to advocate for free speech and press freedoms while promoting speech suppression and censorship.

No-snooping

Now in Your Inbox: Political Misinformation

A few weeks ago, Representative Dan Crenshaw, a Texas Republican, falsely claimed that the centerpiece of President Biden’s domestic agenda, a $1.75 trillion bill to battle climate change and extend the nation’s social safety net, would include Medicare for all.

It doesn’t, and never has. But few noticed Mr. Crenshaw’s lie because he didn’t say it on Facebook, or on Fox News. Instead, he sent the false message directly to the inboxes of his constituents and supporters in a fund-raising email.

Lawmakers’ statements on social media and cable news are now routinely fact-checked and scrutinized. But email — one of the most powerful communication tools available to politicians, reaching up to hundreds of thousands of people — teems with unfounded claims and largely escapes notice.

[OCS: It is a demonstrable fact that the progressive communist democrats continue to assert both their narratives and opinions are representative of the truth and therefore are facts. The great majority of the so-called fact checkers are not, as Facebook admits in a court filing, fact checkers but opinion checkers. And that there is a difference between information published on a public platform and information sent to a private mailbox. Even though we know that some free email providers monitor the contents of emails to provide targeted advertising and to build user profiles, nothing gives them a right to tamper with the message content or add additional warning information in a private message.]

The New York Times signed up in August for the campaign lists of the 390 senators and representatives running for re-election in 2022 whose websites offered that option, and read more than 2,500 emails from those campaigns to track how widely false and misleading statements were being used to help fill political coffers.

[OCS: It is a given that most, if not all, politicians shade the truth or outright lie to advance their personal, professional, and political agenda. It is up to an individual to use their critical thinking skills to filter the information and decide for themselves any takeaways. That some information may reinforce beliefs that are contrary to reality such as distortions of the facts or outright lies is an individual matter that does not involve the government or private enterprise supported by competing interests.]

Both parties delivered heaps of hyperbole in their emails. One Republican, for instance, declared that Democrats wanted to establish a “one-party socialist state,” while a Democrat suggested that the party’s Jan. 6 inquiry was at imminent risk because the G.O.P. “could force the whole investigation to end early.”

[OCS: I leave it up to the readers to determine if the statement “that Democrats wanted to establish a ‘one-party socialist state’” is true. I offer two pieces of evidence: The State of California and the City of San Francisco. As for the Jan. 6 inquiry, I offer the facts that nobody has been charged with insurrection, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi played a major role in the event and is not being questioned, and nobody has adequately investigated the killing of an unarmed protester, Ashley Babbitt, as an unjustified use of police force -- because Babbitt was standing next to three armed police officers and less than one-hundred yards from an armed and armored SWAT team when she was shot.]

But Republicans included misinformation far more often: in about 15 percent of their messages, compared with about 2 percent for Democrats. In addition, multiple Republicans often spread the same unfounded claims, whereas Democrats rarely repeated one another’s.

[OCS: Like beauty being in the eye of the beholder, the veracity of information is in the ideology of the so-called fact-checker. Therefore, it would be next to impossible to identify and quantify misinformation accurately. As for echo-chamber repetition, the left lives in a world of projection where they project their behavior onto their opposition. Just reading progressive emails or listening to progressive pundits who are making the same point and using the same language is enough to raise doubts about this claim.]

The emails reviewed by The Times illuminate how ubiquitous misinformation has become among Republicans, fueled in large part by former President Donald J. Trump. And the misinformation is not coming only, or even primarily, from the handful who get national attention for it.

[OCS: With the tragedy that the progressive communist democrats have inflicted on our nation, the last refuge of Democrat scoundrels is to invoke the evils of Trump. Funny how the progressives seem to overlook a growing mountain of credible evidence of election irregularities while branding any inquiry as a “Big Lie” or an attack on election integrity.]

The people behind campaign emails have “realized the more extreme the claim, the better the response,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster. “The more that it elicits red-hot anger, the more likely people donate. And it just contributes to the perversion of our democratic process. It contributes to the incivility and indecency of political behavior.”

[OCS: About those extreme claims, I believe that the media, especially the New York Times, discovered long ago that “if it bleeds, it leads” and that the bizarre and outrageous attracts an audience. In any number of cases, Luntz’s methodology is little more that political show business and there is no proof that there is any real value in his contribution to the GOP. Political behavior is defined as incivility and indecency, and to pretend differently is a gross distortion of reality.]

The messages also underscore how, for all the efforts to compel platforms like Facebook and Twitter to address falsehoods, many of the same claims are flowing through other powerful channels with little notice.

[OCS: I am not aware of any attempts of Twitter or Facebook to filter or fact-check the lies of Communist China, Russia, or the Mullahs of Iran.]

For fact checkers and other watchdogs, “it’s hard to know what it is that politicians are saying directly to individual supporters in their inboxes,” said Jennifer Stromer-Galley, a professor in the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University.

[OCS: It’s none of their business – anymore than what transpires between consenting adults in their bedroom – or kitchen table.

“And politicians know that,” she said. “Politicians and the consulting firms behind them, they know that this kind of messaging is not monitored to the same extent, so they can be more carefree with what they’re saying.”

Email is a crucial tool in political fund-raising because it costs campaigns almost nothing and can be extremely effective: When campaigns invest in it, it routinely accounts for a majority of their online fund-raising. Supporters are bombarded — sometimes daily — with messages meant to make them angry, because strategists know anger motivates voters.

In many cases, candidates used anger-inducing misinformation directly in their requests for a donation. For instance, after his false claim about payments to immigrants, Mr. Kennedy — who began the email by declaring himself “mad as a murder hornet” — included a link labeled “RUSH $500 TO STOP ILLEGAL PAYMENTS!”

Another common line was that the Justice Department was targeting parents as “domestic terrorists” for challenging the teaching of critical race theory, an advanced academic framework that conservatives are using as shorthand for how some curriculums cover race and racism — or, alternatively, for challenging pandemic-related restrictions.

[OCS: This is pure propaganda and misinformation. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s memo (still not withdrawn) is proof of the first assertion. Critical Race Theory is demonstrably divisive, racist, and without redeeming value.]

Combating misinformation in emails is difficult both because of the private nature of the medium and because its targets are predisposed to believe it — though Emily Thorson, a political scientist at Syracuse, noted that the fact that the recipients were likely to already be staunch partisans reduced the chances of misinformation reaching people whose views would be changed by it.

[OCS: This is the same type of targeting that is being sold by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others in the public arena.]

Professor Thorson said what concerned her more was that — unlike much of the misinformation on social media — these claims came from people with authority and were being spread repetitively. That is how lies that the 2020 election was rigged gained traction: not “because of random videos on Facebook but because it was a coherent message echoed by a lot of elites,” she said. “Those are the ones that we need to be most worried about.”

Mr. Luntz, the Republican pollster, runs frequent focus groups with voters and said they tended to accept misinformation uncritically.

“It may be a fund-raising pitch, but very often people look at it as a campaign pitch,” he said. “They think of it as context, they think of it as information — they don’t necessarily see this as fund-raising, even though that’s what it is. And so misleading them in an attempt to divide them from their money is pure evil, because you’re taking advantage of people who just don’t know the difference.” <Source>

[OCS: It sounds like preparation for a pitch to monitor inboxes.]

Bottom line…

The world is run on competition for power, prestige, and profits. We live in a competitive world of ideas. Anything that artificially interferes with that competition is an unnecessary evil that prevents us from decision-making and acting in our own best interests.

Here is how it all works. Some academic does a study. The media amplify the message of the study. Congress forms an investigatory committee. Some public interest group sues the government. The government caves and produces de facto law or Congress then reacts with “needed” legislation to protect consumers and citizens. And our freedom is diminished.

Most voters do not have the time, energy, or motivation to research their own information, so they look to authority figures. A great reason liars like Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) needs to be held accountable for their lies.

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



JUSTICE: SONIA SOTOMAYOR: IGNORANT OR DELIBERATELY CORRUPT?

As Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor considers the Biden Administration’s Covid-19 vaccine mandates, let us remember that Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee on the second day of her confirmation hearings why she was unsuitable as a nominee to the United States Supreme Court.

Looking past Sotomayor’s false claim that “The Omicron variant is so severe that “we have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, many on ventilators,” she was fundamentally flawed before being seated on the bench. One would think that she would have refrained from interjecting her misinformation and relied on the presented briefs and questioning to develop a fact pattern.

SOTOMAYOR-Q1

Specifically, her comment that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” is a clear and present indication of her unsuitability to perform the duties of a Supreme Court Justice. Namely, the Supreme Court Justices’ primary role is to serve as the final arbiters of the law, ultimately making the highest and final decision in any given case, using the United States Constitution as their guiding principles.

There is no provision for the race, ethnicity, religion, gender, partisan politics, or life experience of a Supreme Court Justice in the deliberative process. They are bound primarily by the U.S. Constitution and secondarily “stare decisis,” the legal doctrine or principle that precedent should inform legal decision-making in a case involving similar facts.

Nominated by President Barack Obama, himself a trained Marxist/Communist, Sotomayor appears to represent the elevation of ethnicity and gender over legal merit.

The 68-31 confirmation vote is indicative of our chief aisle-hopper today.

Republicans Supporting Sotomayor (9 of 40) joined 57 Democrats plus the two independents (Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) voted to confirm Sotomayor. Sen. Ted Kennedy (Massachusetts) was absent due to health reasons.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
• Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)
• Sen. Christopher Bond (Missouri)
• Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
• Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
• Sen. Richard Lugar (Indiana)
• Sen. Mel Martinez (Florida)
• Sen. Judd Gregg (New Hampshire)
• Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio)

Bottom line…

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



IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR BY SOME BLACKS IS CREATING MORE RACISM

PoliceIn what universe does someone condemn a police officer risking his life by confronting an armed assailant to protect himself and members of the community…

[OCS: Is it possible that increasing racism in Los Angeles and elsewhere is being driven by Black activists and agitators who are being given easy access to media sources to "gin up" click-bait stories? And just what “Black Community” might this be that is mentioned in this example?]

Black community outraged after California cop shoots and kills a black man, but cellphone video shows he was pulling a gun

Some members of the black community in Southern California are expressing outrage over the latest incident of a police officer shooting and killing a black man, but cellphone video shows that he was pulling a gun during the altercation.

Some of the neighborhood members expressed outrage at the incident and condemned the officer for being so quick to shoot at the man, implying that racism was a motive for his actions.

"You can't justify a murder because he had a gun," said John Anderson, a resident of the neighborhood, to KCAL-TV. "He had a gun, if he did, to protect themselves, probably from them. They're the ones doing the damage, they're the ones doing the hurt."

[OCS: Let’s review. A police officer, sworn to protect the community -- the entire community -- suddenly finds their motives question, the jobs at risk, and possibly facing a media-driven life altering event is just as likely to be thrown under the bus by their politically-conscious leadership as they are by local politicians playing identity politics.]

A statement released by the San Bernardino Police Department said that the officer had responded to a call about a man with a gun jumping on cars in the "King Tut" liquor store. He was near the store at the time and arrived quickly.

The officer confronted Bender, but the man refused to follow his commands and attempted to enter the liquor store, inside which were numerous employees and residents.

The statement said that the officer attempted to physically restrain Bender but that he was overpowered. It added that Bender reached for his gun and turned toward the officer when the officer shot at him four times.

[OCS: Armed, Erratic Behavior, Dangerous…]

Police said they provided Bender with medical aid but that he died at the hospital. They also claimed that they recovered a firearm at the scene. The 9mm handgun was loaded and not registered, and Bender was not legally allowed to possess a gun at the time.

The statement also lists Bender's long history of arrests for violent crimes, including false imprisonment, criminal threats, and attempted murder. In addition he also had been arrested for domestic violence, possession of narcotics for sale, grand theft, and various probation violations.

[OCS: What does that say about these community members?] 

Despite the report of the gun, some community members still accused the police of acting inappropriately.]

<Source>

Bottom line...

Ever wonder why some individuals cross the street when they see young Black men and women walking down the street, especially in a group? Could it be that it is human nature to maintain situational awareness and employ a heuristic that is based on the statistical probability that someone in a particular cohort is more likely to cause you harm?

By appearing to support thugs, criminals, and drug dealers over members of law enforcement, certain individuals are reinforcing common stereotypes.

BLM, domestic terrorists seeking to affect political discourse through violence, is making it more likely that an armed citizen will discharge a weapon because of a perceived threat. And, the fact that someone is not armed does not mean that they cannot present an existential threat that may require the use of deadly force as protection.

We are so screwed when any segment of our society routinely condemns law enforcement and provides some measure of sympathy for thugs, criminals, crazies, and terrorists.

-- 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



THE SUPREME COURT IS ABOUT TO REVEAL THE STATE OF OUR REPUBLIC

The questions now before the Supreme Court will reveal the state of our republic…

HIDDEN-PARTISANSHIP

The questions regarding the Biden Administration’s mandate to impose a medical treatment, especially one that is not fully tested and available only under an “emergency use” authorization, are a clear and present check on the health of our republic.

  • One, where in the Constitution is the provision for the federal government to usurp the powers granted to the states when it comes to medical treatments and procedures?
  • Two, where in the Constitution is the provision for Executive branch agencies, headed by unelected political appointees, to usurp the sole law-making role of Congress?
  • Three, what are the limits of any “emergency powers” assumed, extra-constitutionally and without congressional authorization, by the President of the United State, and do these emergency powers override constitutional freedoms without a national declaration of martial law?
  • Four, the degree to which “public health” can be used to impose draconian federal rules and regulations on the entire citizenry?
  • Five, the role of religious freedom when claiming exemption from certain rules and regulations.
  • Six, must public health policy decisions be backed by credible, reproducible science, and do dissenting voices have a guaranteed role in the decision-making process?
  • Seven, to what extent are the constitutional rights of volunteers, under contract, in the military capable of being suspended?

The cases…

National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, centers on the vaccine-or-test mandate issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It requires all employers with 100 or more employees – roughly two-thirds of the private sector – to compel those employees to either be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly and wear masks at work.

Biden v. Missouri, the justices are considering whether the Biden administration can enforce nationwide a rule that requires all health care workers at facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption. The Department of Health and Human Services issued the rule, which applies to more than 10 million workers, in November.

The wild cards…

Chief Justice John Roberts has knowingly ignored the constitutionality on matters before the Court on Obamacare (NFIB v. Sebelius), voter rights (Shelby County v. Holder), civil rights (Connick v. Thompson), consumer rights (AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion), and others. Some claim that Roberts was trying to protect the legitimacy and credibility of the Court, while others claimed it was an ego-driven partisan sell-out.

Originally thought to be a conservative, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been more of a moderate, voting with the liberals on several occasions. Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett is a relatively unknown newcomer to the Court but appears to have a strong predisposition toward religious freedom.

No guarantees for any court consistency as we saw in Van Buren v. United States, where Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch sided with liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan Thursday in the application of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to a police officer who had legitimate access to the license information he misused in return for $5,000. It is important to note that the crime was an FBI sting operation, and the plate number was fictitious.

Bottom line…

As it stands, the Supreme Court appears to be divided 3-3-3. Three liberals (Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan), three conservatives (Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch), and three “conciliatory moderates) (Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett).

Ironically, the progressive communist democrats are simultaneously arguing for body sovereignty (My body, My Choice) when it comes to abortion but unrestricted federal power in public health mandates.

The Court will likely rule against the OSHA case but do a rope-a-dope on the health worker case. Both should be roundly defeated 9-0 in the strongest possible statement affirming our Constitution and States’ Rights.

We are so screwed with the Obamacons in charge of the Biden Administration.

-- 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



CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT IS NOT A GUARANTEE OF ANYTHING

For advertisers, celebrity endorsements work well. For celebrities, especially older celebrities, it's another source of easy money.

I received several queries on yesterday’s blog post (Rolling the Dice on Crowdfunding Healthcare), warning readers to be more vigilant when considering crowdfunded programs to simulate health insurance. Most wanted to know the name of the company and the name of the commentator who read the commercial, which suggested today’s post on the reliability of celebrity endorsers.

Note: There is a difference between a brand representative, as often seen in television commercials and major print advertising campaigns, celebrity endorsers (pitchmen) doing infomercials and presenting spot ads in various media, and ad readers who read advertising copy within their respective programs. The ad readers may or may not explicitly endorse the product they are pitching.

H-W

There are any number of celebrity endorsers, including movie stars, professional athletes, wealthy individuals, executives, and other well-regarded and respected individuals, who are willing to monetize their name, fame or infamy, and whatever credibility they possess to sell a wide variety of goods and services, mostly related to health (nutrition, vitamin, dietary supplements, CBD, and weight-loss devices) and investments (cryptocurrency, real estate, collectibles, etc.) – both areas rife with charlatans and scammers.

Perhaps two of the most famous of these celebrity endorsers are former President Donald Trump, who licenses his name for real estate projects and luxury goods, and one of the biggest boxers in history, George Foreman, and what became “The Foreman” grill.” Based on what I have seen and experienced, I would trust George over Donald any day.

Do they really use and benefit from the product or service?

Many endorsers claim to use the product and service (a testimonial) to personalize the pitch. It is not unusual for endorsers to receive a free supply of whatever product they endorse. Whether they benefit or continue using the product is generally unknown and may last only until the last payment is received. All are protected against consumer lawsuits by disclaimers and cut-out corporations. Others may have a stake in the offering company, although their legal liability is well protected against most individual damage claims.

Basically, unless a regulatory agency is involved, most celebrities risk only temporary damage to their reputations in return for sums that can total millions of dollars over time. And, there is no guarantee that the celebrity themselves have not been scammed by the scammers – attested to by the number of celebrities who have lost money in various scams and schemes. The risk is further minimized for older celebrities who have aged out of their sport or the general viewing audience.

There is also an entire genre of scam ads (known as click-bait) based on using a celebrity’s name or picture without their knowledge or permission. Mostly found on internet advertising.

Clint Eastwood Wins $6.1 Million CBD Lawsuit

The Academy Award-winning director accused a Lithuanian company of falsely claiming that he had endorsed CBD products. “Mr. Eastwood has no connection of any kind whatsoever to any CBD products and never gave such an interview,” the court documents said.

The judge, R. Gary Klausner of United States District Court for the Central District of California, entered a default judgment after Mediatonas UAB, the company that published a fabricated interview with Mr. Eastwood, failed to respond to a summons in March. Mr. Eastwood and Garrapata were then awarded $6 million based on the company’s unauthorized use of his name and likeness, along with about $95,000 in attorneys’ fees and a permanent injunction that blocks future use of his name and likeness. <Source>

Bottom line…

Even if the celebrity endorsement is sincere and truthful and the products or services are authentic, there is no guarantee that the product or service will benefit you or be applicable in your current situation. Perhaps the best advice comes from the Better Business Bureau: Investigate BEFORE you invest.

It is usually a scam if it sounds too good to be true. If anyone had a scheme to consistently and easily earn “big money” with an automated system, they wouldn’t advertise – and there is no way they would offer an ordinary individual the opportunity to participate in their scheme.

If you are offered a discount for entering the endorser’s name in the ordering process, be assured there is nothing special about this discount. It is used only to track advertising effectiveness.

We are all one lapse of judgment away from being screwed.

-- steve

Reference links…

  • The Federal Trade Commission notes, “Endorsements are an important tool for advertisers, and they can be persuasive to consumers. But the law says they also have to be truthful and not misleading.” Here is a list of various enforcement and information links at the FTC

“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



ROLLING THE DICE ON CROWDFUNDING HEALTHCARE

Personally surprised…

I was somewhat taken aback that one of my favorite commentators, both broadcast and podcast, with impeccable credentials and a no-bullshit attitude, would read a commercial that could potentially disadvantage some members of his audience in a time of extreme need. I would think that the commentator would have been more sensitive to the issue of medical healthcare coverage given his recent treatment for cancer and the need for adequate medical insurance for himself and his family.

There is a growing trend to use a crowdfunding model to simulate medical insurance. And, several reputable groups have benefited their members over the years. However, you assume the ultimate risk – especially with newer companies without a large member base and a history of competent operation.

It’s not medical insurance…

The promoted product is positioned as an inexpensive alternative that may substitute for medical insurance. Of course, it is not insurance that is regulated by federal and state strict laws. In times of financial stress, it is not subject to having actuarially-computed reserves to meet projected medical reimbursements. And they do not participate in insurance commissions risk pools to protect against company defaults.

Ch-1

The scheme is ingenious. Use crowdsourcing to pay the medical bills of community members. But, instead of relying on donations, require members to pay into the system as if they were paying premiums.

Ch-2

Compared to healthcare insurance premiums, the cost appears modest.

Ch-3

And carries a $500 deductible.

Ch-4

And a $25/month subscription…

Q: What do you mean by monthly subscription?

A: In addition to the amount contributed to the Community each month, every Member pays a $25 monthly subscription. This covers our operational costs so every penny of your monthly contribution goes directly to reduce the healthcare costs of the [redacted] Community.

Terms and conditions apply…

Q: Does my [redacted] Membership satisfy a state or federal individual insurance mandate?Dropdown icon

A: No, your [redacted] Membership does not satisfy a federal or state individual Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) mandate. If you live in a state (e.g. California, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont) with a state-level individual MEC mandate, you are responsible for securing that coverage independently from your [redacted] Membership.

Q: What about big health events?

Dropdown iconA: There is no maximum amount of health care costs you can share with the Community. The [redacted] platform is designed to maximize the probability that all Members’ eligible bills can be funded in full each month. You can learn more in the Member Guide.

Q: What are some examples of treatments and procedures that are not eligible for funding by the Community?

A: To protect the Community from excessive expenses, [redacted] certain conditions and treatments are limited or excluded from funding by the Community—things like alternative treatments, fertility, preexisting conditions over a certain cost, and anything medically unnecessary. Memberships currently don’t include mental health care or vision and dental, but we look forward to expanding what can be funded by the Community as we grow. You can learn more in the Member Guide.

Q: What if I have a pre-existing condition?

A: For pre-existing health conditions, you are responsible for all costs associated with the condition(s) in the first year. The Community will contribute up to $25K to bills related to pre-existing condition(s) in the second year, $50K in the third, and $100K in each year after. Prescriptions for your pre-existing conditions are not subject to the 120-day limit but are subject to the annual pre-existing condition maximums outlined above. You can learn more in the Member Guide.

Q: Do you accept everyone?

Almost! The Community is not currently open to tobacco users (defined as daily use for a period of 3 or more months, past or present) or those who weigh over 260/300 pounds (female/male). We want the [redacted] Community to be a place for anyone looking to improve their health and contribute through the Member Community, so we hope to add an option for people with more varied health histories soon.

No Networks.

Whether you see your favorite doctor, or we find one for you, we want you to experience high-quality care at a fair price. We’ll also help you find hospitals and outpatient facilities that have your best interest in mind.

[OCS: It should be noted that there is no guarantee that your physician or the nearest medical facility will negotiate prices, especially for admissions through the emergency room. Unlike insurance companies that negotiate capitated costs, there do not appear to be such arrangements in place using this plan although the company may assist you in the negotiation.]

What is the definition of eligible?

Plans sold on the US health insurance marketplace deny an average of 17% of in-network claims annually, which dramatically increases the healthcare cost burden to American families.  [redacted] has not denied or left a single bill unfunded for an eligible expense submitted by an active Member of the Community.

Of course, the offering company covers itself with caveats that protect the company and its officers…

  • Fulfill your monthly subscription and contributions, timely and consistently.
  • Believe that highest cost does not indicate best care, being open to considering high-quality health care clinicians who can offer a better price for the care you need.
  • Avoid illegal activity and only submit legitimate, medically necessary bills for Community funding.
  • Care about your own health and that of the people around you, proactively engaging with your health and wisely spending on your health care costs.
  • Trust your Community to help fund your health expenses while understanding that ultimately, each Member is responsible for his or her own medical bills.

Community-Funded Care.

You trust the Crowd to fund your expenses, and your contributions fund theirs, month after month.

[OCS: Trust may be the wrong word. Like many similar faith-based health communities, I would suggest the word “faith” -- because you cannot trust a company who claims you are responsible for your medical bills regardless of the reimbursement they may pay to your healthcare provider.]

What Else Does “It’s Not Insurance” Mean for Me?

We have developed systems and processes that allow the Community to absorb very large medical expenses; however, we are not insurance, and therefore we cannot guarantee that your medical bills will be paid. Ultimately, Members are responsible for their own medical bills.

And the commentator and platform are also protected…

Credible media outlets and commentators often hide behind disclaimers.

11.  Disclaimers. THE SITE, THE MATERIALS ON THE SITE, AND ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE OBTAINED THROUGH THE SITE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAW, [NAME REDACTED], ITS SUPPLIERS, ADVERTISERS, SPONSORS AND AGENTS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE, THE MATERIALS, AND ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE OBTAINED THROUGH THE SITE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ACCURACY, MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND ANY WARRANTIES THAT MAY ARISE FROM COURSE OF DEALING, COURSE OF PERFORMANCE OR USAGE OF TRADE. [NAME REDACTED] DOES NOT WARRANT, ENDORSE, GUARANTEE, OR ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE ADVERTISED OR OFFERED BY A THIRD PARTY THROUGH THE SITE OR ANY HYPERLINKED SITE, OR FEATURED IN ANY BANNER OR OTHER ADVERTISING. YOUR USE OF THE SITE AND ANY MATERIALS PROVIDED THROUGH THE SITE ARE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Bottom line…

DiceThe program may work until it doesn’t. That’s the risk you accept on blind faith since you are ultimately responsible for your medical bills. I am not commenting on the company’s offering, only using it to illustrate the type of issues you should consider before investing in a program that involves healthcare.

For those wanting to research the topic, look for Healthcare Ministries, which are much the same thing with a religious component, and where donations might be tax-deductible.

Listen to the Better Business Bureau: Investigate BEFORE you invest.

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



THE DEMOCRATS' 2022 MID-TERM ELECTION STRATEGY

Dishonesty, distraction, and deflection to subvert the 2022 mid-term elections…

Merrick-garlang-fool

The progressive communist democrats and their propagandists in the media continue to exploit the hours-long January 6, 2020, riot at the Capitol complex to divert the nation’s attention from the decline and destruction of our nation from the criminality, incompetence, and ideology of the Administration under the Democrat’s watch.

Merrick Garland, an attorney general who makes the dishonest former attorney general Eric Holder look good by comparison…

Excerpts from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Delivers Remarks on the First Anniversary of the Attack on the Capitol.

…as we begin a new year — and as we prepare to mark a solemn anniversary tomorrow – it is a fitting time to reaffirm that we at the Department of Justice will do everything in our power to defend the American people and American democracy.

We will defend our democratic institutions from attack.

We will protect those who serve the public from violence and threats of violence.

We will protect the cornerstone of our democracy: the right to every eligible citizen to cast a vote that counts.

And we will do all of this in a manner that adheres to the rule of law and honors our obligation to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of everyone in this country.

[OCS: Given the recent performance of the DOJ and the FBI, these are all BIG LIES!]

Tomorrow will mark the first anniversary of January 6th, 2021 — the day the United States Capitol was attacked while lawmakers met to affirm the results of a presidential election.

Those involved must be held accountable, and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice.

In the early afternoon of January 6th — as the United States Senate and House of Representatives were meeting to certify the vote count of the Electoral College — a large crowd gathered outside the Capitol building.

Shortly after 2 p.m., individuals in the crowd began to force entry into the Capitol, by smashing windows and assaulting U.S. Capitol police, who were stationed there to protect the members of Congress as they took part in one of the most solemn proceedings of our democracy. Others in the crowd encouraged and assisted those who attacked the police.

Over the course of several hours, outnumbered law enforcement officers sustained a barrage of repeated, violent attacks. About 80 Capitol Police and 60 D.C. Metropolitan Police were assaulted.

With increasing numbers of individuals having breached the Capitol, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives — including the President of the Senate, Vice President Mike Pence — had to be evacuated.

As a consequence, proceedings in both chambers were disrupted for hours — interfering with a fundamental element of American democracy: the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next.

Those involved must be held accountable, and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice.

In the aftermath of the attack, the Justice Department began its work on what has become one of the largest, most complex, and most resource-intensive investigations in our history.

[OCS: One might think that the criminality of the Obama Administration and the ongoing election operations which subverted presidential elections and brought about a fundamental transformation of our nation is the highest priority of an honest Justice Department.

If one considers the investigations into the assassination of John Kennedy or the terrorist attack on 9/11/2001where 2,996 people were murdered, or even the multi-year faux investigation of the Donald Trump/Russia hoax, to be the standards for resource-intensive investigations, one might ask why the DOJ is spending their time, effort, and money over an event that was relatively insignificant and did not even rise to the level of the 1983 bombing of the Senate or the 1954 Capitol Shooting by four Puerto Rican nationalists. Events memory-holed by the Democrats?]

We build investigations by laying a foundation. We resolve more straightforward cases first because they provide the evidentiary foundation for more complex cases.

[OCS: How complex can a case for criminal trespass be? It appears most of the “rioters” were lookie-loos taking selfies and souvenirs. Some of the most active participants were well documented but have never been charged – perhaps because they were associated with the FBI or other clandestine government agencies.]

Investigating the more overt crimes generates linkages to less overt ones. Overt actors and the evidence they provide can lead us to others who may also have been involved. And that evidence can serve as the foundation for further investigative leads and techniques.

In circumstances like those of January 6th, a full accounting does not suddenly materialize. To ensure that all those criminally responsible are held accountable, we must collect the evidence.

We follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money.  

But most important, we follow the facts — not an agenda or an assumption. The facts tell us where to go next.

The central norm is that, in our criminal investigations, there cannot be different rules depending on one’s political party or affiliation. There cannot be different rules for friends and foes. And there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless.

[OCS: Garland is a liar and this is a lie!]

There is only one rule: we follow the facts and enforce the law in a way that respects the Constitution and protects civil liberties.

[OCS: Garland is lying. Ask any of the unconvicted political prisoners held under inhumane conditions which violate their civil liberties and amount to torture – to produce confessions, if only to stop the pain. Garland and others should be held accountable for their behavior.]

We conduct every investigation guided by the same norms. And we adhere to those norms even when, and especially when, the circumstances we face are not normal.

[OCS: Another lie.]

Adhering to the department’s long-standing norms is essential to our work in defending our democracy, particularly at a time when we are confronting a rise in violence and unlawful threats of violence in our shared public spaces and directed at those who serve the public.

[OCS: Still waiting for the investigation of communist front groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter which caused billions in property damages, the attack on federal courts, and assaults on federal officers.]

Yada. Yada. Yada.

The United States dodged a bullet when the United States Senate refused to allow Garland to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice…

It has become exceedingly hard to believe that the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, was once nominated by President Barack Obama to sit on the Supreme Court to replace esteemed Justice succeed Antonin Scalia.

"I have selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence.”

“At a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they’re disposable, this is precisely the time when we should play it straight,”

Described as a “centrist appellate judge by the radically progressive New York Times… “In choosing Judge Garland, a former prosecutor who has served on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 1997 and as its chief judge since 2013, Mr. Obama opted to select a jurist better known for his meticulous work ethic and adherence to legal principles than for an ideological bent.”

Bottom line…

Merrick Garland is a dishonest schmuck that needs to be impeached after the 2022 mid-terms if the GOP prevails in the House and the Senate.

We are so screwed when party hacks and ideologues are appointed to high office or are embedded in the bureaucracy.

-- 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