Featured Post- click on title

The CHRISTIAN part of the Christian States of America

Some time back, in an article called The WHY of the Christian States of America, I explained the reason why we- our country, that is- needed...

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Tidbits from the Web Updated 03-07-2017

Saturday, March 04, 2017


Obama wire-tapped Trump Tower

President Trump attacked Barack Obama on Twitter for wiretapping Trump Tower before the election.

A FISA court gave Obama authority to wiretap the tower in October under the guise of national security.

That is chilling and fascist. Obama abused the power of gathering intelligence on terrorists to instead try to throw the 2016 presidential election.

He would have done this no matter whom Republicans nominated. 'Tis the nature of the person.

We have underestimated just how capable of committing evil Obama is.

Here is how the Watergate-style spying worked, according to Breitbart News, which reported, in June, "The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied."

But Breitbart reported, in October, "The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services."

The wiretapping of a political opponent reveals the true character of Obama who was the most vain and immature president in history.

Obama's unpresidential and unprecedented disdain for Trump was shown when Obama repeatedly mocked him when Trump was a guest at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011.

Nothing would surprise me about the lying, incompetent Obama whose legacy is a failed economy, a failed health plan, the rise of the Islamic State, and an undeserved Nobel Prize.
Obama was an affirmative action hire.

Liz Crokin at Town Hall says, "I’ve been closely following the pedophile arrests since Trump took office. There have been a staggering 1,500-plus arrests in one short month; compare that to less than 400 sex trafficking-related arrests in 2014 according to the FBI." 

Ms. Crokin asks, could it be "the reason the shadow government is working so hard to take down Trump is because there are people at the top tied to child sex trafficking? Are they afraid Sessions will drop the hammer on them? Furthermore, could it be that Putin and Trump see eye-to-eye on taking down the pedophile elite circles that have plagued the world so, in effect, their alliance makes them a bigger threat to the guilty involved powers that be?"


Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.
The first full part of the series, "Year Zero", comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virgina. It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election.
Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA. The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.

The CIA made these systems unclassified.
Why the CIA chose to make its cyberarsenal unclassified reveals how concepts developed for military use do not easily crossover to the 'battlefield' of cyber 'war'.
To attack its targets, the CIA usually requires that its implants communicate with their control programs over the internet. If CIA implants, Command & Control and Listening Post software were classified, then CIA officers could be prosecuted or dismissed for violating rules that prohibit placing classified information onto the Internet. Consequently the CIA has secretly made most of its cyber spying/war code unclassified. The U.S. government is not able to assert copyright either, due to restrictions in the U.S. Constitution. This means that cyber 'arms' manufactures and computer hackers can freely "pirate" these 'weapons' if they are obtained. The CIA has primarily had to rely on obfuscation to protect its malware secrets.


 Russia, Fred On Everything - Russia is an economically challenged nation of 145 million, less than half of Europe’s population and much less than half of America’s. Its economy is a small fraction of the combined economies of Europe and America. It is not on a war footing. It is not moving forces into position for an invasion. It is not mobilizing. To satellite photography, to NSA these things would be as obvious as leprosy on a prom queen. The Establishment would be screaming to high heaven if there were the slightest trace of preparation for war. The whole business is manufactured.

Yesterday, in NYC, where 15 years ago Moslems murdered almost 3,000 people; local politicians, including the mayor and poor little rich girl Chelsea Clinton, participated in a Moslem call to prayer in Times Square. 

In a novel called "Submission" the Left in France joins up with the Moslems to protest the right and ends up turning France into a Sharia state. The author is beginning to look like a prophet.

Let’s examine a few of the ways in which the wrongheadedness of leftists resembles the religious bunkum they claim to reject. 
To begin with, leftists believe in the power of money to solve all problems, much the same as Christians believe in the power of prayer to do the same. Leftists believe that the solution to everything is to throw more money at it. Failing schools? Recession? Institutionalized poverty? If the government simply throws more money at it, all will be well. It matters not how many times throwing money at something has failed to solve a problem; for leftists, the money solution is a matter of faith. Here in bluest-of-blue California, every few years, the teachers’ union demands money to “save our schools” in the form of new bonds, taxes, and ballot propositions. And still, even after voters approve whatever the hell the union asks for, our schools continue to lurk in the lowest-third rankings in the nation. So of course the solution is to ask for moremoney in the form of new bonds, taxes, and ballot propositions. To the religious, the proper response to a prayer that fails is more prayer. For leftists, even briefly entertaining the notion that money isn’t a guaranteed cure-all is not allowed, lest ye be seen as turning your back on your faith.

If spending is the equivalent of prayer to a leftist, “climate change” is the equivalent of Christian “end-time” cultism. Let me share with you a very recent, and very relevant, example. Over the past week, we here in sunny insane California have faced the prospect of a major calamity as three merciless months of near-nonstop rainfall have led to the possibility of a massive failure at the tallest dam in the U.S., in Oroville, near Sacramento. It’s a big deal; 188,000 people have been evacuated. Concerns about how the aging Oroville Dam would fare in the face of record rainfall were raised years ago, but the state and the feds ignored them. 
The story has been amply reported locally and nationally. But what the press conveniently leaves out of its coverage is the underlying theory behind the dam inaction: climate-change apocalyptics had convinced the Silly Putty-brained California powers-that-be that rain was never returning to the state. Quite literally, new dams, and improvements on old ones, were rejected because a doomsday cult had convinced politicians that water was “over,” that the drought that began in 2012 was not a passing thing but an “era,” something that would last decades if not a century. And why build new dams if there’ll be no water for them to hold? Why refurbish old ones if there’s no chance they’ll ever be filled again? 
From the L.A. Times, July 2015: 
Dams are a relic of the Industrial Age…. They’re particularly ill-suited to the era of extremes—heat waves, floods and droughts—that climate change has brought on.
The New Republic, April 2015: 
The Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick said: “Even if we built a couple of dams, we don’t have water to fill them. We’re tapped out. The traditional answer of building more reservoirs won’t solve our problems.” Building additional reservoirs does little when there’s no snow or rain to fill them.
California governor Jerry [Moonbeam] Brown in August 2015, responding to calls from GOP presidential candidates to build new dams and renovate old ones:
I’ve never heard of such utter ignorance. Building a dam won’t do a damn thing about fires or climate change or the absence of moisture in the air and ground of California. If they want to run for president, they had better do eighth grade science before they made such utterances.
The Sacramento Bee summed it up succinctly: “Questions loom about the value of such projects in an era of scarcity.” Because indeed, leftist voodoo practitioners had brainwashed the state into believing this was an “era of scarcity.” We were told that Mother Earth was punishing us for our CO2 sins by withholding her precious water, and rainfall would only return once we submitted to cap and trade and international climate-change treaties. And anyone who dared suggest that the drought was a passing thing, that weather was not permanent but fluctuating, was ridiculed for not knowing “eighth grade science.”
Recommended Reading-

Racism Is a Right

The title of this piece is likely to make lots of heads explode. If yours is exploding, it's probably because my definitions of "racist" and "right" are different from yours. So please bear with me, while I tell you what I mean. Then judge away. Judging, another name for discrimination, is also a right.
This essay has two main points:
  1. Entitlements are not rights.
  2. Enforcing the Civil Rights Act on private businesses by calling them "public accomodations" was a despicable usurpation of private property rights.

What Is a Right?

So what is a right? This quote is probably as close to my understanding as I've encountered.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -- P. J. O'Rourke
But let's touch on two oft-quoted lists of "rights". First, the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. When I need to find the exact wording of a particular amendment, I use my copy, billstclair.com/usdocs/bor.html
Then there's the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is quite a bit longer than the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights really says nothing about the actual rights of we the people. It is a list of proscriptions on what the state may do. A list of things that the state may not legislate. Limitations on state power. It lists pre-existing rights, which are independent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and ensures that the state will preserve and protect them. And it includes, in Amendments 9 and 10, rights not explicitly mentioned.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts out well. Up through Article 21 I agree with it, and it is similar to the Bill of Rights. Article 30 is also OK, in so far as it refers to Articles 1 through 21. Other than that, though, it is socialistic, granting "rights" that imply duties for unnamed others to provide for.
To my mind, all proper rights are negative. A right is something that nobody else may properly stop you from doing.
Something that you are guaranteed, but can only have if someone else provides it, is not a right. That is an entitlement. That is socialism.
This means that there is no right to work, food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, or equal pay for equal work. You have the right to obtain those things through your own effort, and to enter into contracts concerning them, but only if you can do so peacefully. You do NOT have the right to force anyone else to provide them for you, no matter how many people vote for it. That is theft, a crime. Legislation cannot magically transform theft into non-crime.
This is severely at odds with "progressive" values. It is one of the big divisive issues in the US today. Many socialist countries provide these things for their citizens. I do not want to the United States to be a socialist country. So I don't care whether some entitlement is provided by some other country. I don't live there, and I don't want to live there. I'm loathe to grant the state even the powers explicitly listed in the US Constitution, with the most narrow interpretations possible.

What Is Racism?

I'll quote the Merriam-Webster online definition:
noun | rac·ism | \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination
I consider it racist to make decisions about your relationship with people based entirely on parts of their appearance over which they have no control, usually skin color, but sometimes manerisms. Though there are certainly statistical correlations between race and intelligence (asians > jews > caucasians > latinos > blacks), and between race and criminal prediliction (blacks really do commit more crimes, at least in the US), the standard deviation is so large that, unless you're stupid, you need to judge each individual on his or her individual merits.
Pre-judging people based on gait (e.g. "pimp roll"), accent, or dress can also be racist, but those are more often correlated with actual behavior, so I consider them to be less stupid.
(More @ link)