archives

anger

This category contains 184 posts

Agendas

There never was a “hole in the ozone”: That was “a practice run for global warming”

Via Bill

The ozone issue was an early misuse of science for a political agenda. It was a practice run for global warming with several of the same people involved.

Attempts to ratify the Kyoto Protocol included claims that the Montreal Protocol, designed to save the ozone layer, was a success. It wasn’t, because there was no problem in the first place.

Chlorofluorocarbons then, like CO2 today, were never a problem.

Environmentalists used a natural change of ozone and CO2 to blame human activity. With ozone, the “urgent problem” was a slight decline in atmospheric levels over Antarctica; with CO2, a slight increase at Mauna Loa.

Both times, they then found and funded scientists to produce the “scientific” evidence.

I explained the problem to the Canadian Parliamentary Committee Hearing on Ozone. I didn’t want to attend, but it was a legal order. It was the fiasco I expected.

More @ The Rebel
I’ve written before in this venue that ‘Science’ with a pre-determined outcome ceases to be science.
There seems to be a group of individuals who hate humans, who wish to vilify them and their actions as being ‘bad’ for the planet.  Of course, this doesn’t mean wholesale pollution by industries (corporations) should be allowed.
It DOES mean there is an agenda attached to this movement.  And it has attached itself – parasitically – to the Green movement, not unlike the Progressives who have attached themselves to the Democratic (and Republican) Parties.
Once again, it is ALL about CONTROL!

Restroom Wars, Part Number Two

bathroom-sign-jpgWhen I ran across this article on Facebook, I truly thought it must be either dizinformazia, or an article culled from The Onion.

After a little side research, I determined this to be the genuine article.  By a genuine LGBT activist.  Who is quite obviously NOT a libertarian!

Famous LGBT Activist Reveals The Scary, Real Goal Of The Bathroom Battle (And It’s Not Bathrooms…It’s Way Worse)

What you may have been suspecting has been confirmed. LGBT activists’ end goal is not ruling over the bathroom. It’s obliterating the family. Riki Wilchins, a famous transsexual who recently wrote a piece in the gay publication The Advocate, revealed that many conservatives and even LGBT activists are missing the forest for the trees.

Titled,“We’ll Win the Bathroom Battle When the Binary Burns,” Wilchins says the real goal is to kill the notion of male and female altogether. The “binary” refers to gender distinction, and getting rid of the “heterobinary structure” is the goal. Wilchins writes that the fact that we are arguing over male and female facilities is proof that we still have far to go–that there should be no gender distinctions in general.

In fact, Wilchins points to an emerging group of people who don’t want to affiliate as any gender. Life Site News explains, “’Non-binary’ people don’t identify as male or female and they often want to be referred to as ‘they’ or ‘hir’ or ‘zer.’  So the fact that there are even intimate facilities that reflect the “binary” truth about gender should change, Wilchins wrote.”

If you are confused, you are not alone. But beneath all of the titles and non-titles, the insidious plan is the destruction of the family, reveals Stella Morabito, senior contributor to The Federalist.

“What we are really talking about is the abolition of sex. And it is sex that the trans project is serving to abolish legally, under the guise of something called ‘the gender binary.’  Its endgame is a society in which everyone is legally de-sexed.  No longer legally male or female.  And once you basically redefine humanity as sexless you end up with a de-humanized society in which there can be no legal ‘mother’ or ‘father’ or ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ or ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ without permission from the State.  Government documents are already erasing the terms.  In such a society, the most intimate human relationships take a hit. The family ends up abolished.”

Morabito hits home the point: “Sex distinctions are the germ of all human relationships. Abolishing them legally basically abolishes family autonomy.  And this is an act of violence against children because it would serve at some point to separate them from their origins. Every child’s first transcendental question is ‘Where did I come from?’  If the law will not allow the child to see his own origins and wholeness in the faces of a mother and a father, it destabilizes the child’s sense of self.  It creates personal dysfunction in children and basically ends up spreading more dysfunction and even dystopia in society.”

This is scary. If Morabito and other cultural watch-dogs are right, the bathroom battle is far more serious than many think. We need to really pray and ask God for help–before it’s too late and our future generations end up really damaged. Do you agree? (Faith Family America)

SO.  Either Ms. Wilchins is a dystopian uber-Statist of the first order, or is a deepest cover agent promoting such nonsense reductio ad absurdum*!

I truly hope it is the second choice offered.

If this is indeed the true ultimate agenda, it goes way beyond men ‘self-identifying’ as female to visit women’s rooms and/or taking surreptitious photos of women and girls, or worse!

But, as The President is taking a hard line on this issue, ‘blackmailing’ the States to conform to this agenda in their schools, or lose federal funding(!), and many believe him to be a variety of Marxist…

Q.E.D.

*Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum, is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.  (Wikipedia)

Waxing Philosophical

…or your mustache or surfboard.  Your choice.  :-)

(from Free North Carolina)

David Hume, Republicanism, and the Human Scale of Political Order

Hume 2

Aristotle taught that “To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements, for none of these things retain their natural power when they are too large or too small.”1 In this paper I want to explore Hume’s views on the proper size and scale of political order.

Size and scale are not the same thing. The scale of a thing is the size appropriate to its function. Scale for human things is the human body and its capacities. Classical architects have longed explored the relation between the human frame, its sensory capacities, and the proper size of doors, windows, courtyards, gardens, the width of streets, plazas, and so forth.

What is the proper size and scale of political order? The answer depends on what we think the function of political order is. Plato and Aristotle thought the function of political association is to achieve human excellence. Since virtue is acquired through emulation of character, face to face knowledge is required of political participants, and this places a limit on the size of the polity.

Aristotle said it should contain “the largest number which suffices for the conduct of life, and can be taken in at a single view.”2 Another classical measure was that one should be able to walk across the polity in a single day. The ancient Greek republics were of this human size and scale.

I’ve asked this question previously.  What is the function of political order? (government?)  Is it to ‘nanny’ the population into some pre-determined ideal – pre-determined by the (almighty, all-knowing) government?  Or is it to allow individuals to be FREE; free to make their own choices and mistakes, and perhaps learn from them?  Or not?  THEIR choice?
And allow them to follow whatever path they choose, as long as it doesn’t impinge on the ability of others to follow THEIR path?
Sadly, I believe most Americans are so fed-up by the ongoing political machine that they don’t care.  And, anyway, they are too busy trying to eke out an existence for themselves and their families, with the ever-present demon of surveillance and taxation wolves at the door.  Or already inside.
How many different taxes and fees are you forced to pay?  And how many agencies are recording your movements, actions and attitudes, through direct physical surveillance, monitoring email, cell phones and social media?  Information many times given up by you voluntarily.
What kind of political order do YOU want?
And do you even have a choice, anymore?

Black Lives Matter – Deflection

DEFLECTION is a time-honored technique of propaganda and argument.  State that your enemy is doing thus-and-such, whether or not they actually are, and YOU are actually doing it!

Case in point:  Wholesale terrorism and espionage as performed by the Eastern Bloc (1920-1990), whilst constantly berating the West for having done so.

Regarding current history:

(in part, from Brock Townsend)

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She earned a B.A. from Yale University, an M.A. in English from Cambridge University, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers and journals, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Criterion, and Public Interest, and is the author of three books, including Are Cops Racist? and The War on Cops: How The New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe (forthcoming June 2016).

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 27, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series. 

For almost two years, a protest movement known as “Black Lives Matter” has convulsed the nation. Triggered by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement holds that racist police officers are the greatest threat facing young black men today. This belief has triggered riots, “die-ins,” the murder and attempted murder of police officers, a campaign to eliminate traditional grand jury proceedings when police use lethal force, and a presidential task force on policing.

Even though the U.S. Justice Department has resoundingly disproven the lie that a pacific Michael Brown was shot in cold blood while trying to surrender, Brown is still venerated as a martyr. And now police officers are backing off of proactive policing in the face of the relentless venom directed at them on the street and in the media. As a result, violent crime is on the rise.

The need is urgent, therefore, to examine the Black Lives Matter movement’s central thesis—that police pose the greatest threat to young black men. I propose two counter hypotheses: first, that there is no government agency more dedicated to the idea that black lives matter than the police; and second, that we have been talking obsessively about alleged police racism over the last 20 years in order to avoid talking about a far larger problem—black-on-black crime.

We All Make Mistakes

I’m a tough taskmaster.  Especially on myself.  I recognize my foibles, and as soon as I do make a mistake I attempt to make amends to those whom I have wronged.

I’m certain not perfect at it.

Progress, not perfection, I’m told.

I just cannot wrap my head around those who not only would attempt to control us, but then take no responsibility for their actions.  I don’t understand what must go through the heads of despots and dictators.

Imagine if Stalin or Pol Pot or Hitler (or Woodrow Wilson or FDR) had used their force for good instead of evil?!

Then I see THIS (from Brock Townsend):

Mother of Benghazi Victim: Hillary ‘Ought to Be Wearing Stripes,’ ‘My Son Is Dead Because of Her’

Via Billy

https://i1.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2016/04/Smith-418-Thumbnail-200x150.jpg

Patricia Smith, whose son, Sean, was killed in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya said that Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “ought to be wearing stripes” and “My son is dead because of her” on Monday’s “Varney & Co.” on the Fox Business Network.

Smith said, “My feeling is that she went on TV afterwards, telling everybody that I was the liar, that there’s someone here that is lying, and it wasn’t her, and that I was liar. I want her to apologize to me for calling me a liar on TV, because this is clearly not true. And I want to know why my son was left to die breathing in diesel smoke, which is the most horrible way to die, and she didn’t do anything to stop it. She could have.”

More @ Breitbart
How much of a sociopath does one have to be to be responsible for the murder or incarceration of millions, to then go home, have a nice evening meal and retire for the evening?
And if they were responsible for the deaths of only four?
And then, to personally attack the veracity of a victim’s mother, instead of being contrite and apologizing.
What is WRONG with these people?

A Right Is A Right Is A Right, Part Dos

Social Security moves to block mentally impaired from owning guns

– The Washington Times – Thursday, May 5, 2016

People who get Social Security disability payments by dint of mental impairment and who need help to manage their finances are so dangerous they shouldn’t be able to buy firearms, the Obama administration said in a new proposal published Thursday that could add millions of people to the lists of banned gun owners.

Disability and gun rights advocates said it was a dangerous proposal that threatened to strip constitutional rights from a large number of people, and they vowed to fight it.

But the Social Security Administration said it has a duty under a 2007 law to start sending information from its files to the list of banned purchasers.

Under the new scheme, those who get disability payments because of mental impairment, and who also have someone designated to handle their finances because of their mental impairment, will be deemed too unstable to buy a gun. Their names will be listed in the National Instant Background Check System, which every licensed firearms dealer must check before selling a gun to a customer.

Social Security didn’t provide an estimate of how many people would be affected, but independent calculations suggest there are millions of people receiving benefits who have a “representative payee” managing their affairs.

The public will have 60 days to comment on the rule, and then Social Security will take those comments into account.

It’s already drawing strong opposition from a powerful mix of groups, particularly disability advocates, who called the move “extremely offensive” and based on broad generalizations.

Cheryl Bates-Harris at the National Disability Rights Network said there’s no evidence connecting someone’s ability to manage finances with being a dangerous gun owner. She said drawing that connection was stigmatizing and stereotyping those with disabilities.

Just as troubling is that Social Security isn’t very good at deciding who should get a representative payee, she said. That means government will be denying the gun-buying rights of people who never should have been on the list in the first place.

“We come across beneficiaries all the time who have rep-payees and don’t need them,” she said.

Gun-rights groups have also vowed to register their objections.

“They are set to strip away your constitutional rights just because you meet a set of criteria established by a group of faceless bureaucrats you’ll never meet,” said Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “That puts thousands of Americans in the terrible position of choosing whether to pay their bills or give up their constitutional rights.”

She said there’s no requirement that the government ever make any individual determination on those it strips of gun rights.

Instead, the administration says it will create an appeal after the fact, so those who have already ended up on the banned-purchaser list can ask to be taken off it. Those on the list could also challenge the situation in court, Social Security said in its proposal.

In its proposal, the Social Security Administration signaled it won’t go back and apply the rule retroactively to people already deemed disabled, but will apply it to everyone going forward — including those cases where Social Security conducts a re-review of a previous decision.

Story Continues →

At least this Administration is consistent.  It keeps trying, through all avenues, to restrict the natural rights of law-abiding citizens, by any means necessary.

We have 60 days to comment to the SS Administration.  It may be a lost cause, but, I would suggest we do so.

SOCIAL SECURITY RULE CHANGE COMMENTS PAGE (link)

♫ Take This Job And Shove It ♫

I ain’t workin’ here no more!

Prior to my almost twenty-two year stint @ TMCCC (that major credit card company) as a credit card fraud investigator, I held FORTY JOBS(!)

Beginning at age 16.

I don’t know if it was immaturity, or low pay/no benefits, or just the wrong fit.  Not everyone is right for every job.  Some jobs I quit, some was fired, some laid-off.  In many I was quite angry at the way things were managed.  And I left – one way or another.

BUT, I never considered THIS:

Of course, I never won the lottery, either!

h/t Irish

TOR Us A New One…

Wirecutter shares THIS with us!

Using TOR? You’re now a criminal.

Seen on Sipsey Street Irregular’s FB page:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday quietly approved a rule change that would allow a federal magistrate judge to issue a search and seizure warrant for any target using anonymity software like Tor to browse the internet.

Absent action by U.S. Congress, the rule change (pdf) will go into effect in December. The FBI would then be able to search computers remotely—even if the bureau doesn’t know where that computer is located—if a user has anonymity software installed on it.
MORE

SERIOUSLY?!

Leave it to the government to CHANGE THE RULES without Congressional approval – or the approval of the electorate.

The ‘rules’?  Shouldn’t this be a matter of law?

or THE BILL OF $*)@$?! RIGHTS!

angerWhat about that pesky Fourth Amendment?  Oh, I forgot, it’s been abolished…

A suggestion was made by an anonymous reader that, as it has been suggested we pepper our emails with security ‘catch-phrases’, like GUNS and PROPANE to overload the system, ALL OF US should download the TOR software for the same reason!

With that in mind…

https://www.torproject.org

 

Restroom Wars

Courtesy of The Grey Enigma

Federal Court Rules That Your Child Must ‘Share’ The Restroom

04/25/2016  

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Seriously, we’re all sitting here watching the USA morph into one giant first world problem.

On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court ruled against a Virginia school district that sought to accommodate a transgender student while also protecting the privacy rights of other students.

The court concluded that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex—should be interpreted as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity, as a Department of Education letter suggested in 2015. The ruling allows a lawsuit brought by a transgender student to proceed.

The case involves a biological girl who identifies as a boy. The court’s majority explains it this way: “G.G.’s birth-assigned sex, or so-called ‘biological sex,’ is female, but G.G.’s gender identity is male.” Note the scare quotes around what the court calls “so-called ‘biological sex.’” Biological sex, in fact, is precisely what Congress protected.

I’m confused.  Certainly there are folks who are ‘gender confused’, as well.  I would think the medical community would be the final determinator regarding whether or not a person requires gender reassignment or therapy to resolve the issues (?)

Remember Charles Beaumont?  The mystery, horror and science fiction author who wrote about horrible things.  Twilight Zone, Night Gallery and Tales from the Unknown have episodes.

Tales from the Unknown had one regarding a little girl who was tortured as a child.  Fed from a dog dish, especially when she showed male tendencies.  BECAUSE SHE WAS IN FACT ANATOMICALLY MALE!

Charles Beaumont had this done to him when he was a child!

If you have XX chromosomes, you are female.  If you have XY chromosomes, you are male.  Those with actual chromosome ‘issues’ make up something like 0.3% of the population.  Others might need therapy, not reassignment and surgery.  Certainly ‘self-identification’ alone contributes to the problem.

If you are confused, seek help.

Of course, this is not easy.  Between societal and parental pressures, the media and some person’s agendas. And as for The American Psychological Association?  The one that just came out and said adults are naturally attracted to children?!  Agendas abound.

I was a father to a daughter.  NO WAY IN HELL would I have allowed some five-o-clock-shadowed lummox in a dress to follow her into the ladies room because he ‘self-identified’ as a woman!

Then I saw THIS (one example of many) on Wirecutter’s blog…

Small Acts of Cowardice Are Destroying Our Culture

Early this morning I was reading Rod Dreher’s blog at the American Conservative and stumbled across yet another dispatch from the utterly absurd bathroom wars. One of his New York City readers wrote in to say that her 14-year-old daughter had just finished dressing in a city locker room when a grown man stepped from the showers wearing only a towel. Girls as young as seven were present, and they were staring at the man with “concerned expressions.” The reader ends her e-mail with, “It sucks to be a parent these days.”
And indeed it does suck, especially when you know that even your friends and alleged allies are simply too timid to act.
MORE
-Jim

(and this is ONE example of MANY where perverts are abusing the ‘good will’ of the courts!)

There was a time when accidentally walking into the ‘wrong’ room was an embarrassing accident, and walking in to view the opposite sex and/or take photos or commit sexual assault was considered a crime!

How many years have gay men and women gotten a thrill out of sharing a restroom or a shower with straights of their own gender?  And they were held responsible if they were inappropriate or criminal?

We are through the looking glass, people.  And it’s two-way and perverts of all varieties are watching!

Cellular Telephone Security

Remember the old adage, “Never put anything into email you don’t want someone else to read.”

(Secretary Clinton, are you listening?)

Of course, with modern security software and pass codes (etc.) we needn’t worry about that with our smartphones, right?

(from Bayou Renaissance Man)

So you think your smartphone is secure?

Not according to CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ program.

Hering is a hacker himself, he’s the 30-something whiz who cofounded the mobile security company “Lookout” when he was 23. Lookout has developed a free app that scans your mobile phone for malware and alerts the user to an attack.

Sharyn Alfonsi: How likely is it that somebody’s phone has been hacked?

John Hering: In today’s world there’s really only — two types of companies or two types of people which are those who have been hacked and realize it and those who have been hacked and haven’t.

Sharyn Alfonsi: How much do you think people have been kind of ignoring the security of their cellphones, thinking, “I’ve got a passcode, I must be fine?”

John Hering: I think that most people have not really thought about their phones as computers. And that’s really starting to shift.

Sharyn Alfonsi: And that’s what you think– it’s like having a laptop now?

John Hering: Oh absolutely. I mean, your mobile phone is effectively a supercomputer in your pocket. There’s more technology in your mobile phone than was in, you know, the space craft that took man to the moon. I mean, it’s — it’s really unbelievable.

Sharyn Alfonsi: Is everything hackable?

John Hering: Yes.

Sharyn Alfonsi: Everything?

John Hering: Yes.

Sharyn Alfonsi: If somebody tells you, “You can’t do it.”

John Hering: I don’t believe it.

There’s much more at the link.  Highly recommended – and disturbing – reading.

Peter

So, about that porn you’ve been sneaking a peek at on your lunch hour…
PS – I saw a recent interview with Jim Caviezel, John Reese of Person of Interest (Season 5 – probably the last – starts TONIGHT 05/03/2016!).  He was asked if he changed any of his habits in real life, having done a political science fiction TV series about rampant surveillance.  He responded he is thoughtful regarding what he says in cellular telephone calls, and ELIMINATED THE INTERNET FROM HIS HOME!  Said he doesn’t need it!  Food for thought…

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 395 other followers