Paid fake protesters were bused in to the anti-Trump protests in Austin, Texas.
They must have spent a lot of Soros money on this operation.
There was a whole string of buses.
Everything they do is fake or paid for.
(from Liberty Headlines)
(Zero Hedge) President Trump was crucified by the mainstream media a few weeks back after hosting an improvised press conference and saying there was “blame on both sides” for the violence in Charlottesville that resulted in the death of a counterprotester. The comments resulted in most of Trump’s advisory councils being disbanded, as CEO’s around the country pounced on the opportunity to distance themselves from the administration, and heightened calls from CNN for impeachment proceedings.
The problem is that while Trump’s delivery probably could have been a bit more artful, the underlying message seems to be proving more accurate with each passing day and each new outbreak of Antifa violence.
As Politico points out today, previously unreported FBI and Department of Homeland Security studies found that “anarchist extremist” group like Antifa have been the “primary instigators of violence at public rallies” going back to at least April 2016 when the reports were first published.
Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO…
Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI…
How may I politely respond to this?
ABOUT F’N TIME!
Now, how about adding Black Lives Matter and all George Soros’ funded entities (and their fellow travelers)? Throw the RICO statutes at then and seize their assets!
I know, too much to ask…
I own an HP Pavilion Touchscreen, with an AMD Athlon™ II X2 235e Processor 2.70 GHz 400 GB of RAM (3.75 GB usable) 64 bit operating system, x-64 based processor. She has a 20″ flat, touch screen, with a cordless keyboard and mouse.
I purchased her on-line, refurbished (2011?) And she has served me very well.
Last week, I received a message one of the software protection programs I purchased after-the-fact was in need of annual renewal.
And, frankly, with all that’s going on here (roomie surgery, less income, etc.), I don’t have the funds. (This is NOT a bleg.)
The next day my computer gave me an error message: HARD DRIVE FAILURE IMMINENT! PLEASE BACKUP YOUR FILES (yadda, yadda, yadda). I went back to using the computer, as I do not regularly back it up, and have no discs with which to back it up, anyway.
Besides, what if it was just some malware file from the software company, or elsewhere?
The computer has continued to function, as usual.
Yesterday, there was a blip in my Wi-Fi service (Cox, who knew?). I reset the router (which is inconveniently downstairs). Upon my return, there was the same message I had received a week ago.
I again accessed my computer, and downloaded a free hard drive analysis program.
The program confirmed my hard drive’s demise was imminent indeed!
I have no funds or credit, so buying a new (or well-used) computer is out of the question. Of course, getting it repaired also falls under these criteria.
I CAN check my email and blog from my smartphone or my cheap, Chinese tablet, with some difficulty.
Obviously, not my first choices.
What to do, what to do?
I will continue to blog, daily, changing the quote, cartoon, beauty and YouTube posting as I can. Who knows – maybe she won’t fail until I somehow find a way to get another PC? 🙂
(I know, I’m an optimist!)
(FTC – HP, Athlon, and Cox have given me nothing, save years of good service (Cox, less so.). I paid for the computer, and pay for Wi-Fi.)
(March 15 for the Julius Caesar/Shakespeare impaired!)
I subscribe to a smattering of emails from allegedly like-minded individuals.
Sometimes I am in agreement with their themes.
Other times, not so much.
One guy, who operates a small libertarianesque, survivalist business has been promoting a book ‘not yet in bookstores’, purporting to describe the next financial collapse, and confiscation of bank accounts(!) by the government!!
Allegedly, this is to begin MARCH 15! (The Ides of March, for all you Julius Caesar fans.)
Coincidence? Astrology? A soothsayer’s truth?
I’ve no idea. I cannot afford the book, and probably wouldn’t buy it, anyway.
Most of my income is direct deposit disability. I suspect if BIGGOV wanted to take it, they would so do.
WHY? Because they can!
(So, you thought you’d withdraw your cash and hide it in your mattress? Not so fast there, Bucko!)
(from Judicial Watch)
JW Files Suit For ‘Refugee Travel Loans’ Information
Tightening our immigration and refugee programs is a matter of national security (despite what some out-of-control judges may think), and it is also a matter of cost.
In this regard, we have filed a lawsuit against the State Department for records on the number of “Refugee Travel Loans” issued by State’s Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration to the United Nation’s International Organization for Migration from 2010 to the present.
We are also seeking the number of loans defaulted upon and the amount of money written off on each defaulted loan. We filed the suit on January 24, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:17-cv-00157)).
Judicial Watch filed the suit after the State Department failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on February 5, 2016, seeking the following:
- All records reflecting the number of Refugee Travel Loans furnished by the State Department’s Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) per year; the number of travel loans that are defaulted upon per year; and the amount of money written off per defaulted loan.
The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration provides funding for aid and relief work abroad and the bureau’s admissions office handles settling refugees in the United States. According to the agency’s website, it spent nearly $545 million “to provide new beginnings to the world’s most vulnerable refugees” in 2016 and more than $2.8 billion to “humanitarian assistance overseas.” It provided $103 million directly to the UN’s International Organization for Migration.
The International Organization for Migration, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, has an annual budget of $1.4 billion and (as of 2014) a staff of 9,000 throughout the world. According to the International Organization for Migration website, the organization provides interest-free loans “furnished by the Department of State” to “all refugees arriving in the United States:”
All refugees arriving in the United States are offered interest-free travel loans by IOM. Refugees who accept these travel loans are required to sign a promissory note prior to departure, committing themselves to repayment of the debt within 46 months after arrival in the United States.
IOM arranges for refugee travel using funds furnished by the Department of State, and is mandated to subsequently effect collections on behalf of the Department of State. Repayments made by refugees toward their loans are returned to the Department of State for use by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) to defray the cost of future refugee travel.
In July 2016, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution making the International Organization for Migration part of the UN.
Even The Washington Post reported that the nine resettlement agencies contracted by the State Department to help resettle refugees in the U.S. actually make more than $5 million a year in commissions on refugee debt collection.
The State Department has stonewalled our request for refugee loan information and associated taxpayer losses for a year – an unlawful delay that screams “cover up.” This is an opportunity for the Trump State Department to come clean and clean up this refugee welfare program.
And there’s a lot more for the Trump administration to clean up when it comes to “refugee loans.” In June 2016, Judicial Watch reported:
The U.S. government gives refugees on public assistance special “loans” of up to $15,000 to start a business but fails to keep track of defaults that could translate into huge losses for American taxpayers, records obtained by Judicial Watch reveal. The cash is distributed through a program called Microenterprise Development run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement.
HHS is not the only government agency doling out huge sums of cash for this cause, though its focus on refugees appears to be unique. Others, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Labor (DOL) also dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to various microenterprise causes. For instance, in one recent year alone USAID spent $223 million on microenterprise development activities, according to figures released by the agency. The USDA also allocates large sums to provide loans and grants to microenterprise development through a special “Rural Microloan Revolving Fund” and the DOL regularly pours lots of money into various microenterprise projects that are promoted as workforce investments in areas with high rates of poverty.
So the debate about refugees is more than about keeping dangerous refugees out, but there is also the matter of asking just how much it costs to make politicians to feel good about themselves by using our tax dollars to provide special assistance to these foreign nationals.
I have no problem with legitimate, vetted refugees or immigrants following protocols for legal residency and eventually even citizenship. I used to know a guy who, with his family, escaped Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali’s tyranny, to arrive here, become a citizen, and open a liquor store. He practically hugged every customer who walked in!
And I remember wondering where Lee Harvey Oswald got the ‘Traveler’s Aid'(CIA) funds of $200, after renouncing his U.S. citizenship and living in the Soviet Union. And was allowed to return back to the United States after purportedly giving away military secrets to the Russians. With nary a hitch.
Much has changed since the 1960’s.
And not for the better.
About these “protests”…
I wonder if it’s just Soros or SEIU (famous for earlier OWS busings) or LaRaza? Or a coordinated effort by community organizers (outside agitators) in all these groups?
I was told by a liberal friend that it didn’t happen against Obama, because folks think Trump is more dangerous (!?) Different strokes, I guess. I thought Obama was/is plenty dangerous…
As for me, there have been Presidents and policies with whom/which I disagreed over the past 40 years. But, I couldn’t leave school – I’d have been suspended. And work? Fired.
Besides, I had and needed to keep my job! (I’m guess this IS a job for many of these folks!)
(in part from Free North Carolina)
Paid fake protesters were bused in to the anti-Trump protests in Austin, Texas.
They must have spent a lot of Soros money on this operation.
There was a whole string of buses.
Everything they do is fake or paid for.
Peter (Bayou Renaissance Man)
posited thusly (in part)…
Donna Laframboise asks, “How many scientific papers just aren’t true? Enough that basing government policy on ‘peer-reviewed studies’ isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.”
We’re continually assured that government policies are grounded in evidence, whether it’s an anti-bullying programme in Finland, an alcohol awareness initiative in Texas or climate change responses around the globe. Science itself, we’re told, is guiding our footsteps.
There’s just one problem: science is in deep trouble. Last year, Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, referred to fears that ‘much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue’ and that ‘science has taken a turn toward darkness.’
It’s a worrying thought. Government policies can’t be considered evidence-based if the evidence on which they depend hasn’t been independently verified, yet the vast majority of academic research is never put to this test. Instead, something called peer review takes place. When a research paper is submitted, journals invite a couple of people to evaluate it. Known as referees, these individuals recommend that the paper be published, modified, or rejected.
If it’s true that one gets what one pays for, let me point out that referees typically work for no payment. They lack both the time and the resources to perform anything other than a cursory overview. Nothing like an audit occurs. No one examines the raw data for accuracy or the computer code for errors. Peer review doesn’t guarantee that proper statistical analyses were employed, or that lab equipment was used properly. The peer review process itself is full of serious flaws, yet is treated as if it’s the handmaiden of objective truth.
And it shows. Referees at the most prestigious of journals have given the green light to research that was later found to be wholly fraudulent. Conversely, they’ve scoffed at work that went on to win Nobel prizes. Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, describes peer review as a roulette wheel, a lottery and a black box. He points out that an extensive body of research finds scant evidence that this vetting process accomplishes much at all. On the other hand, a mountain of scholarship has identified profound deficiencies.
. . .
Politicians and journalists have long found it convenient to regard peer-reviewed research as de facto sound science. Saying ‘Look at the studies!’ is a convenient way of avoiding argument … We’ve long been assured that reports produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are authoritative because they rely entirely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. A 2010 InterAcademy Council investigation found this claim to be false, but that’s another story. Even if all IPCC source material did meet this threshold, the fact that one academic journal — and there are 25,000 of them — conducted an unspecified and unregulated peer review ritual is no warranty that a paper isn’t total nonsense.
If half of scientific literature ‘may simply be untrue’, then might it be that some of the climate research cited by the IPCC is also untrue? Even raising this question is often seen as being anti-scientific. But science is never settled. The history of scientific progress is the history of one set of assumptions being disproven, and another taking its place.
This is precisely why I profoundly distrust any politician who tries to tell us that ‘the science is settled’. All too often, it’s far from settled. It may even be actively and deliberately fraudulent, producing results tailor-made to satisfy the objectives of those who’ve funded the research. Too many ‘researchers’ begin with a goal in mind, their conclusions already identified, and then seek evidence that will substantiate what they want to prove. Anything to the contrary is ignored or discarded, or flagrantly manipulated to achieve the desired result (as in this example, to cite just one – there are many more).
That’s not research at all. It’s pseudo-scientific sleight of hand. It’s a shell game.
I used to believe in SCIENCE. After all, having been taught The Scientific Method, along with the histories of Newton, Curie, Tesla, Edison, Einstein and others, I believed hard work, documentation, reproducing results and guts did it.
The idea that scientists were bending or fabricating their results toward a financial end didn’t even cross my mind. (think Galileo!)
I used to believe in GOVERNMENT. The blueprint the Founding Fathers left us was damn near perfect. Persons who sought government service would swear to uphold the principles espoused in The Constitution.
But, there was an assumption those who chose public service would be MORAL and ETHICAL!
The fact such persons would commit perjury by swearing falsely never even crossed my radar.
The scales have indeed dropped from my eyes.
And scientists and politicians will have to reach a high bar to gain my trust ever again.
Now, I’m relegated to a bunker (in an unknown location) and tin-foil hat (at least philosophically).
If you don’t know the access password, watch out!
Not the usual not enough (although I suspect that applies to most of us…)
There’s been lots of talk lately about doing away with bigger banknotes and moving towards a so-called “cashless society”. To name just a few recent articles:
- The War on Cash
- Stores to customers: “Cash not welcome here”
- A Cashless Society
- Singapore Wants to Be Asia’s Sweden in Push for Cashless Payment
However, when banks start charging you for the privilege of keeping your money in their vaults, that changes the picture. The Wall Street Journal reports:
For years, Germans kept socking money away in savings accounts despite plunging interest rates. Savers deemed the accounts secure, and they still offered easy cash access. But recently, many have lost faith.
“It doesn’t pay to keep money in the bank, and on top of that you’re being taxed on it,” said Uwe Wiese, an 82-year-old pensioner who recently bought a home safe to stash roughly €53,000 ($59,344), including part of his company pension that he took as a payout.
Interest rates’ plunge into negative territory is now accelerating demand for impregnable metal boxes.
Burg-Waechter KG, Germany’s biggest safe manufacturer, posted a 25% jump in sales of home safes in the first half of this year compared with the year earlier, said sales chief Dietmar Schake, citing “significantly higher demand for safes by private individuals, mainly in Germany.”
. . .
Germany’s love of cash is driven largely by its anonymity. One legacy of the Nazis and East Germany’s Stasi secret police is a fear of government snooping, and many Germans are spooked by proposals of banning cash transactions that exceed €5,000. Many Germans think the ECB’s plan to phase out the €500 bill is only the beginning of getting rid of cash altogether.
There’s more at the link.
We’ve already seen calls to eliminate the $100 bill in the USA, and high-denomination bills elsewhere. They’re never made out of concern for our interests – always to benefit Big Brother or the banks. Every time I hear such calls, I check, double-check and re-check my cash reserves (and expand them, if possible).
The anonymity factor is certainly important to many people, including yours truly. In an era when certain purchases (e.g. firearms, ammunition, etc.) are ‘politically incorrect’, I much prefer making private purchases whenever possible, paying cash instead of using credit cards or checks. (For that matter, some vendors such as PayPal and Square specifically forbid using their systems to buy such items, limiting one’s options.) Also, if electronic payment and/or processing systems should go down for any reason (such as the infamous EBT ‘outage’ a couple of years ago), cash will instantly be king once more – so it pays (literally) to have some on hand.
I repeat my earlier recommendation. Try to keep at least one months’ expenditure on hand, in cash – preferably in smaller bills such as twenties. If you can stretch that to two or three months’ worth, it’s not a bad idea to do so. You never know when that cash might come in very handy indeed.
There are a number of items that have come and gone during my adult life as a ‘gunnie’. The Snik holster, and The Randall (Mirror-Image) Left-Handed 1911 are two examples.
A third would be the Auto-Mag. An early effort to put revolver-powered cartridges into a semiautomatic frame. With a larger capacity, of course. 🙂
As with it’s revolver counterparts (the S&W Model 29 and Colt Anaconda) it’s designed primarily for hunting. But you know some fools (and larger folks) will carry them concealed.
Because they can!
The Firearm Blog had this, recently (in part):
If you’re even passingly familiar with Clint Eastwood’s portrayal of Dirty Harry then you’re also familiar with his trademark .44 Magnum (the – at the time – so-called most powerful handgun in the world). And if you’re familiar with “Sudden Impact”, the fourth movie in the Dirty Harry series, maybe you also know about the Auto Mag. Or perhaps you know about the Auto Mag because it’s a badass pistol we’ve been promised another chance at more than once since its movie heyday. So where do things stand as of now?
First, a little company-related background. The original Auto Mag went out of production more than three decades ago. Manufacturing costs apparently outweighed sales profits which eventually led to the pistol’s initial demise which led to a revival as a collector’s item complete with higher price tag. Many attempts were made to keep the gun on the market but in 1982, it all came to a grinding halt. Then, last year, a private investor decided to get involved. They purchased the rights, plans, and even leftover components before setting to work bringing back the Auto Mag. Now, as we edge into the fall of 2016, it looks as though progress has indeed been made.
As of August 2016, Auto Mag is an officially registered trademark. The company is offering the lucky devils who already own Auto Mags their refurbishing services and caliber conversion kits will be offered soon as well. What calibers? We don’t know yet, but you can be sure we’ll let you know when we do. As for future Auto Mag owners, your day will come once the prototype is complete. Firearm manufacturing has come a long way since 1982 in more than a few ways, meaning the new company has to take everything into consideration from metallurgy to machining.
One good move Auto Mag has made is the choice to bring Laura Burgess Marketing (LBM) in to handle the media and marketing side. Marketing matters far more than many people realize – more than even some companies even seem to comprehend – and LBM is a solid choice. LBM will undoubtedly do their part to spread awareness of the pistol’s impending resurrection and will also keep us in the loop regarding future developments.
I don’t expect to see this pistol hit production-ready status until year’s end, but it’s worth the wait. I, for one, am looking forward to trying my hand at the Auto Mag. Who’s with me?
Some years back, Jeff Cooper was asked what would be the purpose of making such a firearm. His answer? To sell, of course!
Here I am, in year FOUR of renting a room, having lost my home due to income reduction, as a result of illness resulting in my going on disability.
I know, everyone has their difficulties. 🙂
I still have boxes of STUFF that need unpacking, because I have even less real estate than my 740 sq.ft. home.
And it occurred to me that as I obviously didn’t have the NEED for this stuff during the past four years, perhaps a good idea would be to SELL IT!
CREATE MORE SPACE AND MAKE A FEW DUCATS. What’s wrong with that?
What’s wrong (or more correctly, difficult) is which method of sale?
There are so many from which to choose – OfferUp, Etsy, EBay, Backpage, the blogosphere, ad infinitum ad nauseum!
Some local (requiring meeting in person or delivery), some national (requiring shipping, etc.) And some of the STUFF may have legal restrictions placed upon it by EBay, fire and police, etc. (reloading materials, ‘firearms-related’ stuff…)
NONE ARE FIREARMS! (Jus’ sayin’)
So, what do you guys recommend? Some local, some shipped, depending on the particulars?
I’ve been told I cannot use my WordPress blog to sell stuff as it’s against their policy? And EBay is weird about what they will allow that is firearms-related: holsters yes, primers no.
I’ve some left-handed holsters, reloading components and parts (brass polisher, primer tubes – Dillon etc. – no press), gun cases, pistol stocks, (maybe) some ammo. Once I inventory the specifics, I’ll send a comprehensive list to a couple local folks who previously expressed interest (because fair is fair), then post the remaining stuff wherever.
And put a link or links here, if permitted.
Thank you in advance.
(Here we are, revisiting a common theme in this blog. It’s as if they are not listening!)
I was fully prepared (okay, 85% prepared) to post last night for today, as this morning I was to be occupied during my blogging time-frame. Another medical procedure. Sigh.
Another endoscopy. A camera-down-the-throat (and biopsy) to see the ‘progress’ of my esophageal erosion due to chronic acid reflux. Which might lead to cancer and/or surgery.
Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t be doing it!
This was set-up by my primary physician, as she saw I was suffering from this condition, and wanted to see the progression of the disease.
SO…I was referred to a specialist who saw me six weeks ago, and scheduled this procedure. One day, outpatient, a few hours. Roomie J will be driving, as I will be rendered unconscious by propofol (the Michael Jackson drug) for the procedure.
Last time I had this done, the clinic-de-jour called me (and sent me a letter) a month in advance to ask me questions about medical power-of-attorney, organ donation, that kind of icky stuff. And advised me there would be an intake charge. Up front.
I was grateful for the heads-up, as being on disability I don’t have lot’s of spare cash lying around for unexpected expenses. I still wasn’t thrilled at the charge, of course.
But this time, the different facility (I changed doctors as the previous guy seemed to want to get as much Medicare money out of me as possible) had not called or sent a letter. I assumed (NEVER do that – D. Brown) that if there were a charge, they would bill me.
They called me yesterday afternoon at 1630 hours (I was to be at the hospital at 0700 this morning) and advised me there would be a charge of over one hundred dollars! They would not bill me, and if I didn’t have the funds, I would have to reschedule!
Of course, I don’t have the money. And the caller had NO IDEA why I was upset, that this was in the very least an inconvenience and poor customer service!
THEN, she hung-up on me!
But not before telling me to reschedule I had to call my specialist’s office – THEY couldn’t do that! At 1630 in the afternoon.
(I did rant, but used no foul language.)
Fortunately, my doctor’s office was still open.
SO…it’s been rescheduled for August 16.
PS – While I was writing this, the hospital called to see where I was. I advised them of yesterday’s conversation and the rescheduling. Must I do everything?