content for usaapay.com courtesy of thenotimes.com
WELCOME

spread the word
.


The No Times
comments, ephemera, speculation, etc.
(protected political speech and personal opinion)

- If this is your 1st visit to this page, please start at the bottom -


2021-


2021-05-15 g
PRIVILEGE OF TOTAL CONTROL

The Democrat, Progressive, Leftist, Globalist coalition has great plans for America once their control is absolute and total.

These three Depression-era images by Dorothea Lange (Mrs. Maynard Dixon) taken for the Resettlement Administration chart the planned regression. Do not forget we have been told that we will own nothing and we will like it.

(The Resettlement Administration was renamed, Farm Security Administration, in 1937.)


Billboard on US Highway 99 in California, 1937
                  Dorothea Lange
Billboard on US Highway 99 in California, 1937 Dorothea Lange


Posed photograph of a Migrant Mother (Florence
                  Owens Thompson), pea pickers camp, Nipomo, California
                  1936 Dorothea Lange
Posed photograph of a Migrant Mother (Florence Owens Thompson), pea pickers camp, Nipomo, California 1936 Dorothea Lange


Damaged Child, Shacktown, Elm Grove, Oklahoma,
                  1936 Dorothea Lange
Damaged Child, Shacktown, Elm Grove, Oklahoma, 1936 Dorothea Lange

Lest you think I exaggerate, remember, "the idea of equity (adjusting shares so that citizens are made equal, i.e., equality of outcomes) tends to have its most stable solution point at “equal access to a pile of rubble,” which we then describe as “not a worthy goal.”

2021
-05-15 f
PRIVILEGE OF POLITICIZED PUBLIC HEALTH WITCH DOCTORS

How A Year Of Unfounded, Contradictory CDC Guidelines Destroyed That Agency’s Credibility Forever
 
Will Americans ever be able to trust the CDC again after the agency mismanaged, lied, and bent to politics of this moment?

No other government agency has accelerated its own demise in the last year faster than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s stuffed to the brim with scientists and doctors and virologists, yet instead of rising to the occasion of a global pandemic, the bureaucracy shattered its reputation and credibility beyond repair.

As Americans slowly learned more about the novel virus and its risks over the course of the last year, they looked to the CDC for expert guidance. The agency responded by only confusing Americans, issuing guidance that not only contradicted their own previous guidelines but also the very thing they claim to represent: science. (read more)




3 Persistent Myths Keeping Americans Stuck With Outdated COVID-19 Rules
 
Here are few of the major COVID-19 narratives, the scientific perspective on the other side, and why ongoing restrictions should be reconsidered.

What started in March 2020 as “two weeks to flatten the curve” has turned into “14 months and counting,” depending on what part of the United States you are in.

In the beginning, relatively little was understood about the COVID-19 virus. But here we are in May 2021 with far better information about it, and still there is wide variability across the United States in restrictions. For example, there is wide variability across states regarding mask mandates. (read more)




5 Big Things Wrong With Biden’s Mask-Or-Vaccine Ultimatum
 
From being impractical to contradicting his own actions to being just plain obnoxious, here's a list of problems with Biden's latest bout of Twitter preaching.

In his latest act of COVID-19 theater, President Joe Biden tweeted Thursday evening, “The rule is now simple: get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do. The choice is yours.”


The rule is now simple: get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do.

The choice is yours.

— President Biden (@POTUS) May 13, 2021


His freakishly condescending and out-of-touch messaging is all kinds of wrong. From being impractical to contradicting his own actions to being just plain obnoxious, here’s a list of problems with Biden’s latest bout of Twitter preaching. (read more)




The Left’s Pro-Mask, Anti-Vaxxer Movement Is Built On Contempt

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lifted face mask recommendations for vaccinated people Thursday.

“Fully vaccinated people,” the CDC wrote, may “resume activities without wearing masks or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.”

Lockdown advocates and leftists who adopted the face mask as a political marker, however, despite full vaccination, pledged to maintain their obedience to strict pandemic mask protocols for fear of even the slightest appearance of association with conservatives they hold in contempt.

This idea to engage in such self-restriction was first mocked online after the CDC relaxed recommendations for vaccinated people outdoors. The DCist published an anonymous “Overheard in D.C.” post which featured an individual conceding the face mask is unnecessary but added, “I really don’t want people to think I’m a Republican.” (read more)

2021
-05-15 e
PRIVILEGE OF MERCHANT of NASHVILLE
(I'll have a "Burisma Burrito" with COKE and "Cannabis Cookies" to go.)


I thought that gas station pic with Hunter was fake, but this guy RECORDED it!!
😂😂 Bless this ballsy gas station! 🇺🇸⚔ pic.twitter.com/PHfAlTxBZv


— Coyote Outlaw (@ThatF_ckerYote) May 15, 2021



2021-05-15 d
PRIVILEGE OF NEUROTIC MASKER


Come and take it! The government won’t tell me to take this mask off! You can pry it from my cold dead face. #COVID19 #Qanons #FirstAmendment pic.twitter.com/2VaUhVkzUG

— Porker Posey (@dmckague) May 15, 2021



2021-05-15 c
PRIVILEGE OF NEUROTIC MISFITS


In my day it was all about "Be All You Can Be" in the real world, no matter your skin color,
it was about character.

Now it's about cartoons, fantasy & social experiments.
The Army's job is to break things and win wars when directed…it's not a petri dish for
social experiments. https://t.co/F9UIWAJIiN


— Tony Shaffer (@T_S_P_O_O_K_Y) May 14, 2021



2021-05-15 b
PRIVILEGE OF MEDICS

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, 15 January 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption"

2021
-05-15 a
PRIVILEGE OF MELANIN

White people cannot ever use the N-Word under any circumstances. Their intent doesn’t matter, just the harmful impact of having uttered the word. It is taboo. Even the term ‘N-Word’ is damaging.

Black people can freely use the N-Word, because Black people mean no harm by it, they have good intent.

Um, yeah, right.

Cowper

2021
-05-14 g
WOKE - THE TRUE OPPOSITE OF WOKE

A Manifesto for the Based

When Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author of, The Gulag Archipelago, gave in his Nobel Lecture the credo, “Let the lie come into the world. Let it even triumph. But not through me,” that was based. Not participating in transparent lies or mass delusion is based. Doing so against the madness of the following crowd is based. Nearly everything that it means to be based is either contained within or predicated upon this one trait of character.

Solzhenitsyn wrote those words as a result of his observations living in what may have been the most brutal tyranny of human history: Stalin’s USSR. That simplest of refusals—the refusal to lie on command, or even to fit in—is, in the end, the summary of his observations of what kind of people had what it took to resist a totalitarian regime. Keeping your head down while you hope the unconscionable blows over, say, so you can keep your job but none of your dignity, is not based.

Being unwilling to lie, which is to say being based, is what set Solzhenitsyn’s various heroes apart from the weakness of character, cowardice, and greed that allowed others to survive, if that’s what it can be called. Solzhenitsyn’s brilliance was in observing that, in the end, this trait of character—the willingness to resist lies, be yourself, and tell the truth even when people won’t like you (or will kill you) for it—is one of the small number of necessary characteristics to grind true tyranny to a halt. The other, if you want to know, is laughter. Both of these things, mixed in the right proportions and applied in the right circumstances, make what it means to be based.

Solzhenitsyn’s time in the USSR under Josef Stalin was extreme, but it was not unique. China, Cambodia, and other places saw similar, or even perhaps worse, depending how one counts untellable horrors. While “it could never happen here” is a bit of wishful thinking applied to the question of whether the Nazi regime could ever be repeated in the United States, the ideological conditions and general cowardice that enable these sorts of catastrophes have already come knocking at our door. Their reception has been, from those with the power to answer, troublingly warm.

Though, for the moment, better conditions generally prevail in our day-to-day lives in our teetering Western liberal democratic republics, we have also found ourselves in yet another period in human history when the many millions believe—or at least pretend to believe—outright, transparent lies about the nature of reality, both social and material. What’s more, our elites and the institutions they command have taken the repetition and promulgation of these lies as sure marks of both status and, believe it or not, sanity. That is, once again the lie is coming into the world, and we have been forced to ask ourselves: will it triumph?

That’s an open question, and its answer depends, in turn, upon the answer to the more personal question Solzhenitsyn answered firmly in the negative. Will it come through me? The fate of the future of Western Civilization and Mankind may well hang in the balance of how that question gets answered, and by who, and how many. That is, its answer depends on how many people are willing to get based and stay that way.

The risk is in a peculiar way perverse. If lots of us get based, there’s very little risk to any of us. On the other hand, if only a few of us do, the risk is immense. It’s the prisoner’s dilemma writ large. If a few get based and most don’t, I lose my skin where you might not. If a lot get based, there will be some damage, but it will be minimal. The trouble is that everyone’s self-interest calculation looks straightforward: getting based is a fool’s errand. This misunderstands both the stakes and the truth of the situation. Going based en masse breaks the spell and eliminates the danger. Failing to do so will bring ruin upon all but a few. Put more plainly, you should take the radicals running this show seriously when they say “liberals get the bullet too.”

To me, then, there’s just one option. It’s time to get based and help other people get based. It’s time for based nation. It’s time for a based movement.

Before we begin on such an ambitious venture, however, the origin of the term “based” should be addressed forthrightly because it is profoundly limiting and, in fact, something that prevents being properly and fully based. The term arose online in talking about various ideas that might justify biological racism and referenced being unafraid to say those things because they are politically unfashionable. It arose in being intentionally, and often crudely, politically anti-correct. It arose, frankly, in crowds rightly identified as being “alt-right.” One could say it has expanded from there into something mostly more commendable. I contend something further: that these new early adopters of the mentality were merely re-inventing, typically crudely, something that has been known since time immemorial, while lashing out at the absurd and illegitimate powers of our absolutely ridiculous day. Forget all that edgelord garbage. The Declaration of Independence was based as hell and still is, and no sane person could mistake Thomas Jefferson for some douchey shitposter just looking to rile up some Libs.

Now we can begin. To be based, simply enough, begins with being willing to speak your mind and state objectively true facts about the world even when people don’t like you for it. It means neither lying nor apologizing just because the crowd expects you to, least of all under the absurd implication that doing so makes you more virtuous and brave. It is the refusal to be concerned with what other people think of you when you’re being yourself and the recognition that it doesn’t even make sense to apologize for being true to yourself and your values, telling the truth as well as you can see it, or making a joke, even a bad one. In judo and jujitsu, base is what keeps you from getting thrown, swept, or flipped. Having base is based.

Being based means tolerating most of what’s done in good faith or to lighten the mood. It’s being real with lots of room to play. It elevates the worthy without falling into the indulgent trap of “celebrating” the ordinary, mediocre, and fake. It includes forgiving the trespasses of others when they aren’t rooted in malice and being unwilling to be a doormat when they are. It also means being sensitive but never hypersensitive. When you’re throwing a tantrum, you’ve definitely stopped being based.

Put another way, fitting to our contemporary circumstances, being based is the opposite of being Woke. Woke is wholly intolerant of everything but itself. It, because it is cynical of every motivation, it never acts in good faith. It brings down every mood and celebrates the worthless and the ugly so long as these take no shame in themselves for being worthless and ugly. Woke forgiveness is impossible because, to the Woke, forgiveness would justify the sin. It demands absolute conformity and tolerates no dissent. It defines hypersensitivity, elevates it as a virtue, and, as a result, is always throwing a tantrum.

Obviously, Solzhenitsyn wasn’t writing about the Woke in The Gulag Archipelago, but what he was writing about was another species in the same totalitarian genus. He was writing about people who, due in large part to their ideological commitments, had become “conscious” of a pseudo-real distortion of the world that we otherwise all must share. The lies he admonished us not to live by might be different lies in specific, but they hold up the same sort of regime in general: a tyranny simultaneously doomed to fail and, according to the preposterous theory informing it, unable to fail. The lies serve this intolerable contradiction, and, in the end, so does the censorship, the gaslighting, the caprice, and the murder, by the tens of millions, if necessary. According to Solzhenitsyn, the one remedy to this sort of incomprehensible (and avoidable) tragedy is to, in a word, get based.

There are, in the end, only two things that can tear such a regime down, and they are, as it happens, interrelated. They are the two most powerful weapons against tyranny in the human arsenal: telling the truth, including by refusing the lie, and laughter. Both are based, and to win both are necessary. While Solzhenitsyn tells us that the whole of a tyrannical regime can be brought down in the end by a single person repeatedly telling the truth, the fact is that the USSR that tyrannized him actually fell when its subjects—for citizens they were not—began to laugh at it. So, where being based begins in a certain stoicism, it’s the most based when it’s stoicism with a sense of humor.

Humor isn’t necessary but is the key to being truly based. Absurdity must be exposed, and no acid is more corrosive to the absurdity of tyranny than laughter pointed in its general direction. So, while being based begins with being unapologetic in yourself and the truth, whatever anyone thinks, it does this ideally while being funny. Power, as it happens, abhors a laugh, at least when it’s not based (based power abides). The more seriously anything takes itself, then, the less based it is, and, in turn, the less able to withstand the based it can be. Voltaire was based; John Oliver is an asshole. This is why the left can’t meme. Meme culture is based. The left is not based.

In a very real sense, being based means being able to roll with the joke and knowing that when someone can’t, it’s on them. The based don’t apologize for jokes because they understand that, simply enough, the only people who would demand an apology for a joke didn’t get it—and that’s not at all based. Jokes are meant to dissolve pretense, and there’s nothing more pretentious in the world than asking someone to take back a joke. Some jokes aren’t funny, and in that case, all that’s needed is to let them fall flat.

This isn’t to say, of course, that being based means being disparaging. Far from it. That’s an earlier and more pitiable iteration of based. As noted above, the based are a tolerant lot, unless it’s of pretense, unfairness, cruelty, or bullshit. Disparagement and bullying aren’t cool—and thus they are primary modes of the Woke—so they sure as hell aren’t based. Jokes are subversive. Jokes erode power everywhere it is abused. Jokes burn off the dead wood and leave what’s green, what’s authentic, untouched. Being based includes understanding the difference.

In fact, the subversive humor of being based is what makes being based so open instead of being closed. It is by its very nature irreverent and sometimes crude, but it always punches up, as they say. It is, after all, based, meaning being planted squarely on the ground. In that regard, being based means recognizing the plain fact that life is, on the balance, a comedy rather than a tragedy, and the more pretentious and unaware those in power are of this fact, the funnier their absurdities become.

To strike a more philosophical tone, being based means having common sense in a postmodern context. Like it or not, “Postmodernity” is the name for the time in which we live. It’s a time of images, corporate gloss, and a certain imposed detachment from the real. If you’re Woke, you think this is a weapon. If you’re based, it’s funny as hell, and, let me tell you something, brother, we’re not going to hesitate to drop our best memes from the top rope. The politics of parody are infinitely lame against the relentlessly subversive power of kayfabe. The cream, after all, rises to the top. You may not like it, but you have no choice but to accept it.

To put that somewhat more seriously, the difference between being based and being Woke is the difference between laughter and shame. Comedy and satire have always had incredible subversive potential against illegitimate power because they get those seduced by that power to laugh at themselves for being a bunch of rubes and fools. That makes them based. Shame has no subversive potential. It’s the tool of tools and scolds. It bends people only to a certain point, and that point is precisely the moment at which they finally laugh. This is why based will always defeat Woke. Because Woke is dumb.

The subversive world of the based is one of pushing boundaries so that the arbitrary and pretentious ones fall even while the real ones are allowed to stand. In this observation is all the difference between humor and shame and thus all the distance between based and Woke. Humor washes away the absurd in a tide of laughter and leaves behind what’s real and what really matters—that’s based. Shame doesn’t. It just knocks everything over in its ridiculous attempt to prove that it’s the only thing that isn’t absurd—so not based; totally cringe, in fact. That is, humor is gentle while shame is crude, and humor is alive where shame is afraid to live. This is why the based roll with the joke. This is why the Woke laugh at nothing. It’s because they have no base.

Tyranny is knocking, and we need to get based. Solzhenitsyn told us what it would take to stand up to the end of the world, and what it boils down to is being based—and being based for our times. Our times are absurd, but this doesn’t diminish the threat. Still, in the end, there’s nothing new under this yellow Sun, and, as ever, the truly absurd cannot possibly abide people who completely refuse to take them seriously. The future, then, belongs to the based, not to the clowns. That future is ours because the future is based.

Freedom is ours for the taking. The lies are coming into the world, and, for the moment, they have begun to triumph. Lord, though, are they funny. Being based is little more, then, than a laughing refusal to be pushed around by the preposterous. It’s a refusal to go along with the crowd when the crowd has gone mad. While many people seem to realize that there is some problem, only the based realize not only that its safer and healthier to break away, but that it’s also hilarious. The based aren’t about to live by ridiculous lies because they’ll be too busy laughing the bottom out from under them. (read more)

2021-05-14 f
WOKE - CRITICAL LOOK AT CRITICAL THEORY
(If Karl Heinrich Marx said, "Workers of the world, unite." Critical Theorists say, "Victims of the racist world, unite."

Critical Race Theory: A Two-page Overview

“Unlike traditional approaches to civil rights, which favor incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory calls into question the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and the neutral principles of constitutional law.”
From, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, first edition (2001), by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, p. 3.

“Crits [Critical Race Theorists] are highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely, rights.”
From, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, first edition (2001), by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, p. 23.

Critical Race Theorists describe Critical Race Theory as a movement (which is strange for a theory of society) designed to reinvent the relationships between race, racism, and power in society. To do this, they begin with the assumption that race is socially constructed and racism is systemic. This means that  they view racial categories as social and political fictions that have been imposed by white people on people of color, especially blacks, and that the “system” upon which all of society operates on every level unjustly produces “racist” outcomes that favor whites (and minority races that adhere to “whiteness”) at the expense of people of color, especially Latinos and, even more especially, blacks. Because racism is a property of the system, which includes everything from policy to behavioral norms to manners of speech to what we consider true, racism persists even if no individual or institution acts in a racist way or holds any racist beliefs. It is the way society operates that is racist, as can be determined by the fact that there are statistical differences in average outcomes by racial category.

Critical Race Theory proceeds upon a number of dubious assumptions and by means of a variety of questionable methods, including:

Racism is ordinary: Critical Race Theory holds that “racism is the ordinary state of affairs in society,” thus the question in Critical Race Theory is not “did racism take place?” but “how did racism manifest in this situation?” Thus, racism is relevant to all interactions and everything else that happens according to Critical Race Theory, and it is everyone’s duty to investigate, expose, and “disrupt” this racism once identified.

Immanence of racism: As a corollary to the above, racism is believed to be immanent in society, which means hidden just below the surface and everywhere, always, according to Critical Race Theory. Therefore, all acts of racism are not to be understood as isolated incidents by individuals or institutions but as specific manifestations of a pervasive system that defines society. (This is why justice is not achieved by finding a police officer guilty; the system must be remade instead.)

Interest convergence: Critical Race Theory holds that dominant racial groups (whites) will not help more oppressed racial groups (blacks, in particular) unless it is also in their own self-interest to do so. Therefore, racism does not go away but is just reproduced in new ways, usually ways that hide it more successfully and require more work to identify in the future (through Critical Race Theory). Therefore, racism doesn’t get better and, in a sense, gets worse over time because it gets harder to identify and call out.

Motivated ignorance: Dominant racial groups (whites) are positioned as benefiting from the system of racism Critical Race Theory assumes pervades everything and therefore have little to no motivation to challenge or change it. Instead, they have motivation to intentionally ignore racism (“willful ignorance”) , to maintain it, and to rationalize it as justified (say, by claiming success is the result of merit). Refusal to “interrogate” one’s own “white complicity” in the racist system is often treated as a character flaw (e.g., “white fragility”) and a feature of white privilege. This trait, together with the above, gives racism a permanence, according to Critical Race Theory.

Structural determinism: Critical Race Theory holds that the systems of oppression in society determine one’s outcomes in life. Therefore, people of color (especially blacks) are positioned by the allegedly white supremacist system to be kept down, and it is the deterministic power of those power structures (rather than individual traits like character or merit) that determine success or failure in life.

Authentic racial experiences (engaging positionality): Critical Race Theory holds that systemic racism creates identifiable racial experiences for members of all racial groups. Further, Critical Race Theory is the only social theory in existence that properly understands how one’s racial social position with respect to these power dynamics can be rightly understood. Therefore, members of each racial category have an authentic racial experience as determined by Critical Race Theory that describes their lived experience within an allegedly white supremacist and systemically racist system that is, especially, “anti-Black.” When these perspectives are put forth by a member of the relevant racial category, they cannot be questioned. When a contradictory perspective is put forth by a member of the relevant racial category, that person is said to have some form of false consciousness, such as “internalized racism” or a cynical desire to “act white” for personal gain.

Unique voice of color: Corollary to the above, Critical Race Theory holds that critically conscious (Woke / Critical Race Theorist) members of minority racial groups possess a unique voice of color that speaks to the lived experience of systemic oppression by race, as Critical Race Theory defines it. This is another tool for asserting that Critical Race Theorists cannot be doubted in their declarations of their experience “as a” member of a particular race.

Identity politics: Critical Race Theory is unabashedly involved in identity politics in the sense of creating special interest groups and political coalitions out of racial identity groups. This tends to take the form of a small number of Critical Race Theory activists speaking for certain racial “communities,” using the points above as justification.

Impact over intent: Critical Race Theory holds that if a (critically conscious) member of a minoritized racial group has experienced racism in some word or deed, then that’s the correct explanation for what happened, and it cannot be questioned. This empowers hypersensitivity and a victimhood-seeking frame.

Anti-liberalism: As can be read in the quotes at the top of the page, Critical Race Theory holds that the philosophy of liberalism is, in fact, a racist system because it creates conditions under which existing inequities (inequalities in outcomes) increase while misleading people to believe that things are more fair than they are.

Narrative and counterstorytelling: Critical Race Theory favors the telling of stories, especially stories that challenge prevailing wisdom or reject established knowledge (usually resting in lived experience and/or statistical exceptions and outliers) as a means of challenging and rejecting facts in favor of politically useful statements and beliefs. Narrative is considered superior to careful, rigorous methodologies, which are believed to have been established from within the “white racial frame,” for example, and that therefore uphold white supremacy, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Revisionist history: Critical Race Theorists believe it is their obligation to rewrite history to tell it from the perspective of Critical Race Theory (even if factually inaccurate—because of the reliance on narratives and counterstories) rather than fact-based or official history, which is deemed to have been written from within the “white racial frame,” which is believed to uphold systemic racism and white supremacy. This is the role of the 1619 Project.

Intersectionality: All forms of oppression by all forms of identity are linked into one broad, pervasive “Matrix of Domination,” thus necessitating solidarity across all forms of oppression.
(read more)

2021-05-14 e
WOKE - EQUITY IN THE REAL WORLD

Equal Access to a Pile of Rubble

As we wrote in Cynical Theories, the idea of equity (adjusting shares so that citizens are made equal, i.e., equality of outcomes) tends to have its most stable solution point at “equal access to a pile of rubble,” which we then describe as “not a worthy goal.” This is because the easiest type of equity to achieve is everybody gets (close to) nothing, and it is also because the Critical Theory-based ideology pushing for equity doesn’t know how to build anything anyway. (read more and listen)

2021-05-14 d
WOKE - THE PAUSE THAT REFRESHES
“go woke and go broke”

No More Woke-A-Cola? Coca-Cola Abruptly Pulls Back on Extreme Left-Wing Social Agenda

Coca-Cola has suddenly put a halt to the hardcore, left-wing social agenda it was planning to implement company-wide. Looks like Woke-a-Cola has realized that going woke is not the best business plan.  Coca-Cola pulls back

Woke CokePerhaps proving the saying, “go woke, go broke,” Coke has canned its initial plans to push a heavy, left-wing social agenda with its products and company culture. The pause on the social agenda came right after Coke’s former general counsel Bradley Gayton, abruptly resigned last month after less than a year at his job.

There are some internal sources that say some worried that Gayton’s social media agenda would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which maintains that employers can’t treat people differently based on their race.

Coke executives are now reassessing the social justice plans.


“When there is a leadership change, it takes time for the new leader to review the current status of the team, organization and initiatives,” said Coke spokesman Scott Leith. “Monica is fully committed to the notions of equity and diversity in the legal profession, and we fully expect she will take the time necessary to thoughtfully review any plans going forward.”

One of Gayton’s eyebrow-raising ideas was to have Coke penalize or even cut ties with law firms that don’t meet his diversity ideals. Gayton’s plan would have forced law firms that wanted to do Business with Coke to have at least 30 percent of its lawyers be black.

“The hard truth is that our profession is not treating the issue of diversity and inclusion as a business imperative,” Gayton exclaimed in January. “We have a crisis on our hands and we need to commit ourselves to specific actions that will accelerate the diversity of the legal profession.”

Gayton’s plan though raised concerns that Coke’s actions were actually illegal.

In light of Gayton’s resignation, Coke announced that it is “taking a pause for now” on his announced social plans.

The New York Post added:

It’s hardly Coke’s first stab at being woke.

In February, employees were urged to be “less white” as part of the company’s alleged diversity training. The “Confronting Racism” course in question was offered by LinkedIn Education and allegedly utilized by the soft-drink titan.
 see also

Coca-Cola slammed for diversity training that urged workers to be ‘less white’

“In the U.S. and other Western nations, white people are socialized to feel that they are inherently superior because they are white,” reads one of the slides, allegedly sent from an “internal whistleblower” and posted on Twitter by YouTube commentator Karlyn Borysenko.

Another slide suggests “try to be less white” with tips including “be less oppressive,” “listen,” “believe” and “break with white solidarity.” The tweet that shared images of the course went viral.

Perhaps Coke is finally starting to “get” that going woke isn’t the best plan after all. (read more)

2021
-05-14 c
ARIZONA AUDIT (Dominion Voting Systems also refuses to supply passwords demanded by subpoena.)


If Dominion had access to the machines, and Maricopa County did not, then
WHO DELETED THE DATABASES?


Subpoena their asses NOW!


~ ARIZONA 😡


Dominion Voting Systems releases statement responding to the Arizona Senate’s request for admin passwords.


Via Flying Monkey Duda Monkey pic.twitter.com/zCUZqH7VvR

— Forever Trumper (@FanaTeresafana) May 14, 2021



2021-05-14 b
FÜR ELISE IS THE NEW TUNE


JUST IN – Rep. Elise Stefanik, the new conference chair of the GOP, says
“the American people are suffering under the far left, radical socialist policies
of President Joe Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.” pic.twitter.com/LCkl3lG6XH


— Disclose.tv 🚨 (@disclosetv) May 14, 2021


2021-05-14 a

The new mating call of the Bolshevik regime that now rules Washington, D.C. is “respect the science.”  Even senile old Joe Biden, a lifelong corrupt political hack who may not even remember anymore what planet he is on, is fed the line by his handlers.  It’s really hilarious to be preached at in this way since such people obviously know nothing whatsoever about science and the scientific method and do not have the brain matter to begin understanding it.

What the establishment really means by “respect the science,” however, is: “Do as we say, or else.”  They don’t mean real science and scientific knowledge, derived from research, testing of theories, intellectual debate and discussion.  No real scientist would ever utter the words “settled science,” especially areas of scientific research that are based on statistical probabilities, as is true of ALL medical science. (“The practice of medicine is all about statistics,” a young emergency room physician said to me recently).  The notion that the earth was flat was once “settled science,” after all.  Only ignorant buffoons and political shysters like Al Gore or Joe Biden (and your typical American “journalist”) would mumble such nonsense.

There are no longer any tradeoffs in life, government has announced, such as recognizing that lockdowns abolish economic freedom, impoverish millions, and destroy lives.  All of that is to be ignored, and anyone who brings it up is branded as an enemy of human civilization.  “Truth” is determined solely in Washington, D.C. as espoused by the establishment’s paid propaganda peons such as one Anthony Fauci, a lifelong government bureaucrat who went to medical school sixty years ago but never actually practiced medicine himself.

Fauci, and only Fauci, is to dispense “scientific” information about pandemics and such, we are told by our rulers; all others are to be condemned as quacks and conspiracy theorists in the name of “respecting the science.”  Only Fauci possesses the deep, dark secrets of “science.”  When a Trump administration cabinet member told the media in the Spring of 2020 that a second opinion was a good idea, they jeered at and attacked him.  They worked diligently to try to destroy Dr. Scott Atlas, who did manage to offer a second opinion from his position in the Trump administration, even though he was essentially censored by the “mainstream media.”  When Senator Rand Paul asked Fauci why he was still wearing two masks in public after being vaccinated, the media did not follow up on his obvious question, but rabidly attacked the senator for bringing it up.  Nothing in the world is more un-scientific than this version of “science” that is practiced by the white-coat-wearing prostitutes of the “public health” bureaucracy and its political patrons.

Thomas DiLorenzo

2021
-05-13 j
Editor's Note:

MOB in MOURNING in THE CHURCH OF COVID (the sacrament of masking is diminished)

The usual suspects (pussies, wusses and bed wetters) are outraged.

The ineffective masks are no longer required (with some exceptions) for guinea pigs who have received the experimental gene therapy shot (a.k.a "vaccine').

There is much weeping and gnashing of teeth in the bluest states along with discrete rending of out-of-fashion garments.

Folks, the sacrament of masking was never about "The Science." It was about raw power, and social control, and submission training, and instilling fear (of germs and people).

These masks did not exclude viruses. Viruses are much smaller than the pores in most masks.

A woman doctor was aghast the CDC reversed its mask "guidance;" actually, she was bereft.

Some Covid-Cultists are soooo concerned that the control group (the not vaccinated) will avail themselves of this smidgen of freedom without having earned it. However, cynics believe the mask's fall from grace could be a vain attempt to boost lagging vaccination rates by providing an incentive to the weak-willed and slow-witted to submit to the jab.

Oh ye of little faith! Fear not, the masking requirements will return in force with news of the next "variant" or virus (real or imagined). Your rulers feared the masked serfs would storm their palaces wielding pitchforks and torches. This is only a summer respite.

The ruling class was well pleased with the high level of mask compliance over the past 14 months by their good and faithful servants.

The masks will be back. The sacrament will be restored. The Reign of Terror will intensify if Democrats cling to power despite the audits.


2021
-05-13 i
MOB MORALITY in THE CHURCH OF COVID (purging heresy and heretics)

Canadian Doctors Are Being Censored

n April 30th, 2021 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put out a highly controversial statement regarding what it considers to be Covid misinformation. The CPSO is a regional regulatory body empowered by statutory law to exercise licensing and disciplinary authority over the practice of medicine in Ontario. Think of it as the equivalent of a State Bar Association for American lawyers except for Canadian doctors. The statement from the CPSO goes as follows,

The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.

The CPSO justifies its statement with the following rationale,

“There have been isolated incidents of physicians using social media to spread blatant misinformation and undermine public health measures meant to protect all of us.”

This development is nothing short of horrifying. Although there are certainly concerns about the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories in the age of Covid-19, this sort of broad censorship of speech from practicing medical professionals is not only an ethical sham but anti-science. The practice of science is premised on the rigorous application of the scientific method which among other things requires falsifiability and debate. The move to silence doctors also flies in the face of liberal democracy – something that has been deteriorating around the world as both the public and private sector move to silence dissent.

The fact that the CPSO, a licensing body wielding the power of the state, has taken such an aggressive move to silence dissent even on lockdown policies is especially disturbing given that they are preventing doctors from voicing their expertise on such important matters. The Toronto Sun comments on the incident by writing,

“Right now, restrictions are severe in Canada. The public health orders concerning, for example, the closure of basketball courts and golf courses in Ontario have been widely condemned by many physicians.

Why should physicians not speak out against restrictions that they feel are harmful to the health of their patients?

“Despite undeniable suffering due to lockdowns, the CPSO wants Ontario doctors to stay quiet,” wrote Dr. Shawn Whatley, a former president of the Ontario Medical Association, in a guest column in the Sun.”

It Doesn’t Stop In Ontario

One may think that the policy adopted by the CPSO may be an extreme aberration unique to Ontario. According to the Toronto Star this practice is seeing more adoption, not less. It writes,

“Doctors in British Columbia are being warned they could face investigation or penalties from their regulatory body if they contradict public health orders or guidance about COVID-19.

The warning is contained in a joint statement from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. and the First Nations Health Authority.”

One doesn’t even need to have a strong opinion on this matter to understand that censoring doctors and mandating conformity to state policy is not only immoral but a direct attack on scientific freedom.

The Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth

In response to the CPSO’s order, there has rightly been pushback from the Canadian medical community in the form of the Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth. The Declaration’s website features a petition that has been signed by over 4,700 physicians and concerned citizens at the time of this writing.

The declaration lays out three basic complaints with the CPSO’s order.

1.Denial of the Scientific Method itself:
2.Violation of our Pledge to use Evidence-Based Medicine for our patients:
3.Violation of Duty of Informed Consent

More elaboration and information can be found on the Declaration’s website.

Closing Thoughts

To paraphrase the great human rights activist and Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, what it meant to be a loyal Soviet citizen was to say what you’re supposed to say, to read what you’re permitted to read, and to vote the way you’re supposed to vote, and to know it was all a lie.

It doesn’t take a background in medicine to know that the censorship of medical professionals during a pandemic is the last thing that should be happening. There is no better time for rigorous debate on the efficacy of public health measures than now with unprecedented and unproven lockdown policies being forced on populations worldwide.

Some may say that we can trust that freedom of speech will be restored and that censorship is necessary to expedite the end of the pandemic. This is abundantly flawed for two reasons. The first being the idea that Canadian doctors must conform to the vision of the state and not question it. This is not only a violation of their duty as medical practitioners and scientists but deeply crippling to a sound public health response. Finally, this move is fundamentally opposed to the values of liberal democracy which have now been jeopardized on a global scale. With the lights of an enlightened and modern civilization going out across the world, it would be fair to ask, will they ever be turned back on in our lifetime? (read more)

2021
-05-13 h
MOB MORALITY in THE CHURCH OF COVID (lockdown inerrancy as an article of faith)

Lockdown Mongers Can Point Fingers, But The Science Is In: They’re To Blame
 
The ruling class is trying to blame those who were right about lockdowns from the start. Don't let them.

Anthony Fauci, leading leftists, and their malicious band of media mouthpieces have all been sticking their fingers in the dike of the lockdown strategy. But as the data blows holes in the idea of lockdown inerrancy and the science gushes out, the ruling class is getting swept up in the current of their own failures, flailing at their opponents in a desperate attempt to divert blame.

For more than a year, proponents and opponents of COVID-19 lockdowns have played tug of war over safety and freedom, with both camps declaring fealty to science despite opposite messages. Thanks to the ruling class who insisted shutting down would save lives, that became the conventional wisdom. Fauci, President Joe Biden, and their allies in the media called for nationwide lockdowns, with Biden condemning Trump for leaving the decision to states and Fauci saying this time last year, “I don’t understand why” a nationwide stay-at-home order isn’t happening.

As is so often the case, however, the conventional wisdom was wrong. A new study from Chicago University economist Casey Mulligan validates what the anti-lockdowners knew all along: Lockdowns are a bad idea. After workplaces implemented mitigation measures, they became far safer environments than people’s homes.

“Available data from schools, hospitals, nursing homes, food processing plants, hair stylists, and airlines show employers adopting mitigation protocols in the spring of 2020,” Mulligan wrote in the study. Such mitigation protocols included masking, reasonable social distancing, screening, and improving airflow — steps people wouldn’t take in their own homes. “Coincident with the adoption, infection rates in workplaces typically dropped from well above household rates to well below.”

One example Mulligan included was the Duke Health system. After Duke’s hospitals and clinics implemented strategies to mitigate COVID spread, “an hour worked in the Duke Health system went from being more dangerous than an hour outside work to being more than three times safer.”

This makes sense, of course, not only because free businesses have always possessed incentives to create safe environments for their patrons and employees, but because ordering people to stay home doesn’t account for the social impulses of human beings that rightly prevent total isolation. This is why studies have shown community COVID transmission usually occurred inside households.

“[W]orkers have been 4-5 times less safe outside their workplace than inside it,” said a press release for the study, in a direct rebuke to lockdowns. “While stay-at-home continues to be pushed as promoting public health, nobody is checking the data which say the opposite.”

Data Schmata

That data has gone out the window with all the other unsavory data, like the number of students cheated out of a full year of education and what that means for the future of our workforce, or the almost 100,000 businesses that permanently shut their doors. Lockdown proponents don’t like to talk about the fact that their policies resulted in the United States losing 3.5 percent of its GDP in 2020, without saving the more than 580,000 people whose deaths were attributed to the virus, plus untold lives lost to despair and a lack of access to preventative care. And what do we have to show for the $2.6 trillion in taxpayer cash lawmakers threw at the problem without a moment of introspection?

One fact we must not lose sight of, which the lockdown kings would prefer you’d forget, is that a number of scientists and other informed dissenters warned against locking down from the very beginning, only to be scorned and ignored by the corporate media, Fauci, Deborah Birx, and their bossy band of bureaucrats. These scientists were accused of murder, threatened with losing their esteemed jobs, and slandered by the hive-minded mob. Worse still, left-wing lockdown proponents are now pointing fingers at scientists who opposed them, trying to blame the anti-lockdown crowd for the deaths and disaster the shutdowns caused.

For instance, while the media lauded Gov. Andrew Cuomo as a pandemic hero while he locked down New York and ordered COVID patients to be housed in nursing homes alongside the pandemic’s most vulnerable, the same media excoriated leading scientists such as Dr. Sunetra Gupta, who opposed anti-science lockdowns while advocating for special measures to protect the elderly.

It’s safe to say the approach of the Oxford University professor and leading infectious disease epidemiologists would have been superior to that of the scandal-ridden governor, but Gupta’s detractors have blamed her for deaths that her guidance likely would have prevented. In The Guardian in January, Neil O’Brien, a Tory member of British Parliament, smeared Gupta and other anti-lockdowners for their “fantasies” and “tall tales,” saying they “make stuff up” and “have a hell of a lot to answer for.” In the same pages, George Monbiot called Gupta a “pundit” and said she “makes misleading claims about the pandemic.”

Gupta worked with two other notable public health experts in October 2020 to draft the Great Barrington Declaration, which was signed by numerous other doctors and scientific experts. The declaration called for implementing “focused protection” for vulnerable demographic groups while working toward herd immunity for resilient populations and avoiding detrimental lockdowns.

Fauci, the highest-paid federal employee who has been the biggest disgrace of the pandemic (second only to Communist China), said the declaration was “total nonsense” and “very dangerous.” The media called it the “epitome of arrogance” and reckless, implying that the Centers for Disease Control’s opposite approach of sweeping and invasive restrictions relied on “intellectual humility” — despite the latter assuming elites knew better than most Americans what would be best for each of them. The director-general of the World Health Organization, who is also a shill for the murderous CCP, called the idea “unethical.”

Leaders such as Birx, who was the federal coronavirus response coordinator, are also pushing blame. She now says hundreds of thousands of the lives lost to the virus “could have been mitigated or decreased substantially.” “The federal government did not provide consistent messaging to the American people and that is fault number one,” Birx said.

But the truth of the matter is that the inconsistent messaging came from Birx and her team. Instead of working to protect the vulnerable elderly, Birx made personal visits to states where she undermined the president’s COVID-19 messaging, paying special attention to college students, who were at extremely low risk.

Lockdown Was ‘Pro-Contagion’

A study released last month of the effects of lockdowns in 10 countries was damning. Not only did researchers find that “mandatory stay-at-home and business closures” resulted in “no clear, significant beneficial effect … on case growth in any country,” but in some cases, lockdowns were actually “pro-contagion.”

Pair that with reporting from The New York Times on Tuesday exposing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for manipulating data and unnecessarily restrictive recommendations. While the agency said that “less than 10 percent” of COVID-19 transmission was happening outdoors, the true figure for outdoor transmission appears to be below 1 percent and might even be less than 0.1 percent. Nevertheless, the CDC has taken lockdowns a step further by attempting to micromanage how businesses and individuals behave outside.

“These recommendations would be more grounded in science if anywhere close to 10 percent of Covid transmission were occurring outdoors. But it is not,” David Leonhardt wrote in the Times’ morning newsletter. “There is not a single documented Covid infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions, such as walking past someone on a street or eating at a nearby table.”

First, note that this is the same David Leonhardt who recently wrote in a different Times newsletter that contributing to the “culture of mask wearing” by putting on a face covering is the “decent thing to do.” Like Birx, Fauci, and other ruling class elites, media personalities don’t get to shift blame when their COVID convictions turn out to be backward.

Second, note the CDC’s mammoth error. Extra cautious and invasive outdoor restrictions were as wrongheaded as other aspects of lockdowns.

The science is surfacing, and with it the reality that our ruling classes blew it big time. They failed on lockdowns. They slashed our economy. They killed the elderly, screwed students, and ruined livelihoods. They lied about transmission, flip-flopped on guidelines that they didn’t abide by anyway, and turned our cultural climate into a fearful and isolated space. When intelligent people raised alarm bells and offered alternatives, they were scoffed at and ignored.

Now the ruling class is trying to blame those who were right from the start. Don’t let them. (read more)

2021-05-13 g
MOB MORALITY in THE CHURCH OF COVID (only sinners get sick)

The woke mob says catching COVID makes you a bad person

To the woke mob, if you got COVID that means you weren’t careful enough.

Anyone who has sneezed or had a tickle in their throat out in public in the last year knows how uncomfortable it is. The wide-eyed glares you get while people take another step away from you, as if you were a leper. Six feet, all of a sudden, doesn’t seem far enough.

Sick or in perfect health, since this pandemic's start, we have launched into treating each other as parasites.

Governments across the world—especially in Canada—have imposed strict lockdowns on citizens, telling them who is and isn’t essential. Striking down civil liberties and increasing police powers to previously unimaginable heights.

But beyond lockdown, there is a new punishment that has come during this global pandemic. It is no longer okay to get sick.

Being ill is more or less criminal now.

Not only are you not allowed to be sick, God forbid you get COVID-19 and actually beat it.

Getting sick or contracting COVID has become socially irresponsible and unacceptable. Quarantining yourself for weeks isn’t good enough for the morally superior. If you get sick, you must be ostracized too.

To the woke mob, if you got COVID that means you weren’t careful enough.

You didn’t do enough, you didn’t care enough. You didn’t wear two or three or four masks, you didn’t wear rubber gloves or a face shield, you didn’t cut everyone off from your life and sit at home like a hermit.

If you got COVID, they paint you as someone who doesn't care if people die.

Being integrated back into society after being quarantined takes time because everyone around you has a certain comfort level. The government has certain rules, your employer (if you’re lucky enough to have kept your job) has certain rules, and your friends and families can make up all the rules they want.

You may come out of your quarantine feeling tainting and judged. You are given the scarlet label, "COVID positive" and this doesn’t go away after your 10-14 days quarantine.

According to the Canadian government, employers are required to "investigate instances of employees with confirmed COVID-19."

Now our employers are getting involved in our personal business to try and figure out what you did, where you went, who you saw and who you’ve had contact with since.

What happened to privacy? What happened to freedom? We used to be able to do what we want when we want.

Not anymore, not with the new normal. The new normal is someone tracing our every step.

We’ve all seen arbitrary COVID rules everywhere we go. You go to a coffee shop and are told you are not allowed to stand in a certain area until you get called over to that exact area that you were just publicly shamed for standing at.

You’re not allowed to go into your local pet store, but you can walk into a busy Wal-Mart. You’re not allowed to buy "non-essential" items, but you can grab the item right next to it.

These types of rules don’t end in stores or businesses—they continue into every household.

After you get COVID, you are labeled and shunned. Your neighbour will think twice before approaching you, your work place can ask you to stay home an extra few days and your friend may not give you a ride to the laundry mat.

Logic has flown out the window a long time ago. People are desperate and scared. That’s why we set in these erratic and inconsistent rules.

Even though by law, you are technically safe to re-join society after your 10-14 day quarantine people will still look at you differently. People will have preconceived notions on why you got sick in the first place and believe me, they will judge you.

The one thing lockdowns and restrictions have certainly done to us as a society is broken down social norms and created animosity between neighbours and strangers.

People will always look at you and wonder what you did wrong to get sick in the first place. They will be mad at you for living your life, and that’s so fundamentally wrong.

Everyone gets sick, and it’s no fun to be sick. When your neighbour or friend gets better, try being compassionate and stop the public shaming. (read more)

2021
-05-13 f
VACCINE NEWS


What the Hell Is in Those Experimental Gene Therapy Shots?

2021
-05-13 e
ARIZONA AUDIT III

(Might naughty Maricopa County officials be going to jail?)


Breaking Update: Maricopa County deleted a directory full of election databases
from the 2020 election cycle days before the election equipment was delivered to
the audit. This is spoliation of evidence! pic.twitter.com/mY0fmmFXAm


— Maricopa Arizona Audit (@ArizonaAudit) May 13, 2021



2021-05-13 d
ARIZONA AUDIT II
(Might naughty Maricopa County officials be going to jail?)

Letter from Arizona Senate President Karen Fann to Maricopa County Supervisor Chairman Jack Sellers

Dear Chairman Sellers:

I am writing to seek your assistance and cooperation in the resolution of three (3) serious issues that have arisen in the course of the Senate’s ongoing audit of the returns of the November 3, 2020, general election in Maricopa County.

I. Ongoing Non-Compliance with the Legislative Subpoenas

The first issue concerns Maricopa County’s apparent intent to renege on its previous commitment to comply fully with the legislative subpoenas issued on January 13, 2021, which, as you know, Judge Thomason found were valid and enforceable.

To date, attorneys for Maricopa County have refused to produce virtual images of routers used in connection with the general election, relying on a conclusory and unsupported assertion that providing the routers would somehow “endanger the lives of law enforcement officers, their operations, or the protected health information and personal data of Maricopa County’s citizens.” If true, the fact that Maricopa County stores on its routers substantial quantities of citizens’ and employees’ highly sensitive personal information is an alarming indictment of the County’s lax data security practices, rather than of the legislative subpoenas.

Similarly, the County’s assertion that producing the internet routers for inspection would cost up to $6,000,000 seems at odds with Deputy County Attorney Joseph La Rue’s prior representation to Audit Liaison Ken Bennett that the routers already had been disconnected from the County’s network and were prepared for imminent delivery to the Senate.

Nevertheless, in an effort to resolve the dispute regarding production of the routers, we propose that agents of CyFIR, an experienced digital forensics firm and subcontractor of Cyber Ninjas, review virtual images of the relevant routers in Maricopa County facilities and in the presence of representatives of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Such an arrangement would permit Maricopa County to retain custody and monitor the review of router data while ensuring that the Senate may access the information it requires—and to which it is constitutionally entitled—to successfully complete its audit. The Senate has no interest in viewing or taking possession of any information that is unrelated to the administration of the 2020 general election.

Separately, Maricopa County has refused to provide the passwords necessary to access vote tabulation devices. Its attorneys’ insistence that the County does not have custody or control of this information is belied by the County’s conduct of its own audits, which, if they were as comprehensive as they purported to be, almost certainly would have entailed use of the passwords to examine the tabulation devices, and it strains credulity to posit that the County has no contractual right to obtain (i.e., control of) password information from Dominion.

II. Chain of Custody and Ballot Organization Anomalies

As the audit has progressed, the Senate’s contractors have become aware of apparent omissions, inconsistencies, and anomalies relating to Maricopa County’s handling, organization, and storage of ballots.We hope you can assist us in understanding these issues, including specifically the following:

1.The County has not provided any chain-of-custody documentation for the ballots.Does such documentation exist, and if so, will it be produced?

2. The bags in which the ballots were stored are not sealed, although the audit team has found at the bottom of many boxes cut seals of the type that would have sealed a ballot bag. Why were these seals placed at the bottom of the boxes?


3. Batches within a box are frequently separated by only a divider without any indication of the corresponding batch numbers.In some cases, the batch dividers are missing altogether. This lack of organization has significantly complicated and delayed the audit team’s ballot processing efforts. What are the County’s procedures for sorting, organizing, and packaging ballot batches?


4. Most of the ballot boxes were sealed merely with regular tape and not secured by any kind of tamper-evident seal.Is that the County’s customary practice for storing ballots?


5. The audit team has encountered a significant number of instances in which there is a disparity between the actual number of ballots contained in a batch and the total denoted on the pink report slip accompanying the batch. In most of these instances, the total on the pink report slip is greater than the number of ballots in the batch, although there are a few instances in which the total is lower. What are the reasons for these discrepancies? For your reference, please see several illustrative (i.e., not comprehensive) examples in the table below:


(image in original)

For your convenience, images of the corresponding pink report slips are attached in Exhibit A.

III. Deleted Databases

We have recently discovered that the entire “Database” directory from the D drive of the machine “EMSPrimary” has been deleted. This removes election related details that appear to have been covered by the subpoena. In addition, the main database for the Election Management System (EMS) Software, “Results Tally and Reporting,” is not located anywhere on the EMSPrimary machine, even though all of the EMS Clients reference that machine as the location of the database. This suggests that the main database for all election-related data for the November 2020 General Election has been removed. Can you please advise as to why these folders were deleted, and whether there are any backups that may contain the deleted folders?

The image below shows the location of the files known to be deleted. In addition, the main database for “Results Tally and Reporting” is not present.

(image in original)

I am hopeful that we can constructively resolve these issues and questions without recourse to additional subpoenas or other compulsory processes. To that end, I invite you and any other officers or employees of Maricopa County (to include officials in the Elections Department) who possess knowledge or information concerning the matters set forth above to a meeting at the Arizona State Capitol on Tuesday, May 18, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 109. Chairman Petersen, former Secretary Bennett, and I will attend the meeting, which will be live-streamed to the public.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience whether you accept my invitation and, if so, which Maricopa County personnel will attend.

Thank you for your cooperation on these important issues of public concern.

Respectfully,

Karen Fann, President

Arizona State Senate

2021-05-13 c
ARIZONA AUDIT I

(Might naughty Maricopa County officials be going to jail?)


America’s Audit: What the mainstream media isn’t telling you… Legal action imminent.
Audit side benefit: questions of election office irregularities, breach of Voter ID information
AZGOP Chairwoman @kelliwardaz reports #AmericasAudit #FinishTheAudit #ElectionIntegrity pic.twitter.com/GZVeMAx2Wj


— Arizona Republican Party (@AZGOP) May 13, 2021


2021-05-13 b
THE COVID-CON II

COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion [Mad Cow] Disease

ABSTRACT

Development of new vaccine technology has been plagued with problems in the past. The current RNA based SARSCoV-2 vaccines were approved in the US using an emergency order without extensive long term safety testing. In this paper the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was evaluated for the potential to induce prion-based disease in vaccine recipients. The RNA sequence of the vaccine as well as the spike protein target interaction were analyzed for the potential to convert intracellular RNA binding proteins TAR DNA binding protein (TDP-43) and Fused in Sarcoma (FUS) into their pathologic prion conformations. The results indicate that the vaccine RNA has specific sequences that may induce TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations. In the current analysis a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats (ΨGΨG) were identified and additional UG (ΨG) rich sequences were identified. Two GGΨA sequences were found. Potential G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but a more sophisticated computer program is needed to verify these. Furthermore, the spike protein, created by the translation of the vaccine RNA, binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a zinc containing enzyme. This interaction has the potential to increase intracellular zinc. Zinc ions have been shown to cause the transformation of TDP-43 to its pathologic prion configuration. The folding of TDP-43 and FUS into their pathologic prion confirmations is known to cause ALS, front temporal lobar degeneration, Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological degenerative diseases. The enclosed finding as well as additional potential risks leads the author to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit.

Introduction

Vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, late developing adverse events. Some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered. In the example of type 1 diabetes the frequency of cases of adverse events may surpass the frequency of cases of severe infectious disease the vaccine was designed to prevent. Given that type 1 diabetes is only one of many immune mediated diseases potentially caused by vaccines, chronic late occurring adverse events are a serious public health issue.

The advent of new vaccine technology creates new potential mechanisms of vaccine adverse events. For example, the first killed polio vaccine actually caused polio in recipients because the up scaled manufacturing process did not effectively kill the polio virus before it was injected into patients. RNA based vaccines offers special risks of inducing specific adverse events One such potential adverse event is prion based diseases caused by activation of intrinsic proteins to form prions. A wealth of knowledge has been published on a class of RNA binding proteins shown to participating in causing a number of neurological diseases including Alzheimer’s disease and ALS. TDP-43 and FUS are among the best studied of these proteins.

The Pfizer RNA based COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the US FDA under an emergency use authorization without long term safety data. Because of concerns about the safety of this vaccine a study was performed to determine if the vaccine could potentially induce prion based disease.
[...]
Discussion

There is an old saying in medicine that “the cure may be worse than the disease.” The phrase can be applied to vaccines. In the current paper the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19. This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent. While this paper focuses on one potential adverse event there are multiple other potential fatal adverse events as discussed below.

Over the last two decades there has been a concern among certain scientists that prions could be used as bioweapons. More recently there has been a concern that ubiquitous intracellular molecules could be activated to cause prion disease including Alzheimer’s disease, ALS and other neurodegenerative diseases. This concern originates due to potential for misuse of research data on the mechanisms by which certain RNA binding proteins like TDP-43, FUS and others can be activated to form disease causing prions. The fact that this research, which could be used for bioweapons development, is funded by private organizations including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Ellison Medical Foundation without national/international oversight is also a concern. In the past, for example, there were prohibitions for publishing information pertaining to construction of nuclear bombs.

Published data has shown that there are several different factors that can contribute to the conversion of certain RNA binding proteins including TDP-43, FUS and related molecules to their pathologic states. These RNA binding proteins have many functions and are found in both the nucleus and the cytoplasm. These binding proteins have amino acid regions, binding motifs that bind specific RNA sequences. Binding to certain RNA sequences when the proteins are in the cytoplasm is believed to causes the molecules to fold in certain ways leading to pathologic aggregation and prion formation in the cytoplasm. The current analysis indicates Pfizer’s RNA based COVID-19 vaccine contains many of these RNA sequences that have been shown to have high affinity for TDP-43 or FUS and have the potential to induce chronic degenerative neurological diseases.
[...]

One author has found amino acid sequences coded by the spike protein to be identical to sequences in human proteins including proteins found in the CNS [central nervous system]. Autoimmunity can also be induced by epitope spreading when a foreign antigen, like the spike protein, is presented by an antigen presenting cell that also has self-molecules attached to its MHC molecules.

Finally, others working in the field have published additional support that COVID-19 vaccines could potentially induce prion disease. Authors found prion related sequences in the COVID-19 spike protein which were not found in related coronaviruses. Others have reported a case of prion [Mad Cow] disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, initially occurring in a man with COVID-19. (read more and see references)


2021-05-13 a
THE COVID-CON I

"It’s even worse than your point out. The person they hired to investigate the lab for the WHO perspective is the guy who gave the money. So NIH gave the money to EcoHealth. The head of EcoHealth – they got him to investigate whether Wuhan was doing anything inappropriate in their lab. But if they were then wouldn’t he be culpable? Doesn’t he have a self interest in smoothing things over. I’m not saying he did cover things up but you wouldn’t appoint someone who is in the line of the supply chain of giving the money to them. Ultimately here’s the rub. I don’t know whether it came from the lab. But who could be culpable? Dr. Fauci could be culpable for the entire pandemic!"

- Senator Rand Paul, this morning on Fox News


2021
1-05-12 k
ARIZONA AUDIT (Though Dave is a credible source, we have not been able to independently verify this report.)

LEAKED AUDIT NUMBERS SHOW TRUMP CARRIED ARIZONA BY OVER A MILLION VOTES

America needs to hear this. The audit in Maricopa County is the last chance for America to stop the Biden team of communists from completing their destruction of America while setting up the country to lose World War III. America is not paying attention to the audit and there is nothing more important right now. If Arizona were to be flipped for Trump, the dominoes would begin to topple and many other swing states would move in Trump’s direction. This is particularly true if jaiL time was attached to corrupt election officials.

Trump won the election in Arizona by a massive 2-1 landslide. The numbers from the audit have been leaked to me.

Official Arizona Vote Totals Immediately Following the Steal:

Biden 1,672,143

Trump 1,661,686,

Biden won by just under 11,000 votes

Total votes counted=3,333,829

The Maricopa County Audit Team’s Findings

Trump 2,373,838-
Remember, Trumps original vote count was 1,661,686. Trump’s “official” vote total represents a staggering reduction of 712,152.

Biden vote total= 1,286,264.
The original Biden vote total was 1,672,143. The audit discovered that Biden’s votes decreased by 385,879.

President Trump won Arizona by 1,087,574 votes with 2,373,838 to Biden 1,286,264.
President Trump captured nearly two-thirds of the vote.

After conducting a forensic audit, the audit team found that the vote flipped by approximately 1.1 million votes! This means that over one-third of the vote was stolen by Democratic Party operatives.

Anecdotally, this matches the number of people at various Arizona political rallies. Trump would typically draw capacity crowds for various venues ranging from 15,000 to 25,000. Conversely, Biden/Harris never drew 100 people in any rally. One Saturday, the only people to show up for a Biden rally, in downtown Phoenix, were the advance team members of the Biden campaign as reported on the scene by Fox News 10 in Phoenix.

As far as political signs, there were hundreds of Trump signs for every Biden sign. The Biden signs in Arizona might be valuable today because there were so few of them!

How did this happen? How did this election get stolen?

Perpetrating the Steal

Maricopa County election officials have made a stunning confession that opens the door to rampant and massive corruption. The Maricopa County Election team freely and fully admitted that, at no time, did these “guardians of the election” have Administrative access to their own county’s voting machines.

This opens the question who did have access and why did not the Constitutionally mandated County personnel have access as required by law? What was learned by the audit team is they did they cede this MANDATED responsibility to the Dominion voting machine company! This is not legal and in the opinion of this author this explains how Biden stole over one-third of the vote as the President with dementia carried Arizona by a paltry 11,000 votes.

In yet another act of blatant criminality, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors are refusing to turn over routers or router images, from the voting machines to the election auditors. They are defying a court order. Supervisor Bill Gates and his cohorts on the Board have repeatedly said that this was most fair election ever! Then what are they afraid of? Why doesn’t the State Senate order the Board of Supervisors to be arrested for contempt of court?

Unfortunately, the Sheriff for Maricopa County is not Joe Arpaio. His name is Paul Penzone. He is a consummate communist dedicated to preserving the voter fraud. On election night, people were gathering to protest the disqualification of votes for Trump. In heavily populated Republican areas, within Maricopa County, election officials began to tell people to use sharpies, that were handed out by election officials, to mark their ballots rather than the standard black ballpoint pens. The sharpies bled through and many votes were disqualified. It is likely that over 90% of the disqualified votes were for Trump. When the people began to protest because they were not allowed to get a new ballot. Penzone showed up and demonstrated his communist stripes. He ordered the peaceful crowd to disperse or go to jail. He allegedly told some people who were chanting “F… CNN” to a CNN team, that they would go to jail if they did not maintain silence. Recently, Penzone criticized the audit along with other corrupt Arizona officials like Katie Hobbs, who has brought George Soros operatives to the floor of the audit. Should SHERIFF Penzone be entering the media with politically biased comments about the audit? This is highly inappropriate for a Sheriff. But again, Arizona has the most corrupt voting in the country and corruption can only be maintained by corrupt officials such as Hobbs and Penzone. Finally, does Penzone sound like a Sheriff who would arrest Dominion Voting Machine Personnel and/or County Supervisors for contempt of court with regard to the 2020 election? I don’t think so.

Further, Arizona GOP Chair Kelli Ward tweeted that devices that held data during the election in Maricopa County were illegally taken offsite on a a nightly. The investigation has not revealed who was responsible, but as far as corrupt Maricopa County elections go, this is not new behavior. Ernie Hancock, former Chair of the Libertarian Party in Maricopa County has filed suit in the past for the repeated violations of the chain of custody for votes in the past. Corrupt judges, just like with Trump’s voter fraud lawsuits have repeatedly refused to hear any evidence on this matter. Both Ernie Hancock and former Phoenix City Council representative, Frances Barwood, have personally told me that open boxes of votes have repeatedly been transported by single parties in private cars! What could possibly go wrong? Then there was the case of State Senator Jack Harper who challenged the election integrity in a Phoenix suburb. This challenge removed Harper as a front runner for a major political position in Arizona’s GOP!

Both sides of the aisle are involved in the cheating, although the Democrats' interference is more common. When I first moved to Arizona, I met and was befriended by the late Lorraine King, a Democratic Party activist. She greeted me with “Welcome to Arizona, Dave, we have the best politicians that money can buy. The late state representative, Marilyn Jarrett, told me the exact same thing. When it comes to voting, Arizona is a cesspool of corruption.

The violated chain of custody regulations was rampant on election night of 2020. There are over two dozen anecdotes that I could pass along but the reader should have a clear understanding of how bad the corruption is here in Arizona. Chicago’s organized crime syndicate that has historically rigged elections has nothing on Arizona when it comes to elections.

America, this is your last chance to rid the country of the communist infestation that is destroying us on a daily basis. I would suggest that the readers pay attention and then become active. BEHIND IT ALL ARE SOME VERY CORRUPT POLITICIANS WHO HAVE BETRAYED COUNTRY, THE STATE AND THE CONSTITUTION. A FUTURE ARTICLE WILL EXAMINE, IN DETAILS THE KEY PLAYERS BEHIND THE ARIZONA STEAL.  (read more)

2021-05-12 j
PIPELINE UN-HACKED


Latest Update – Colonial Pipeline Return to Service:
https://t.co/WkosDxQ0CV  pic.twitter.com/mWTuJBVHVM


— Colonial Pipeline (@Colpipe) May 12, 2021



2021
-05-12 i
BLACK NABBED DUE TO PIPELINE "HACK"
(He wanted to shoot his brother in Times Square but missed.)

Times Square shooting suspect caught in Florida after running out of gas

The man accused of shooting two women and a toddler in New York City’s Time Square on Saturday was detained near Jacksonville.

Farrakhan Muhammad was found and taken into custody at a McDonald’s located at 802 South Walnut Street in Starke, according to NBC affiliate WTLV. He was found in his car when it ran out of gas due to gas station closures in Florida, Spectrum News NY1 reports.

A senior law enforcement official told NBC that NYPD detectives tracked Muhammad down by checking cameras that showed the suspect leaving Times Square to go to a hotel. There he changed clothes and was seen leaving with a woman believed to be his girlfriend.

They were believed to be heading South, and there was a confirmed sighting in North Carolina on Tuesday. Right now, his girlfriend is being questioned to see if she knew he was wanted and whether she was knowingly helping to harbor a fugitive.

A 4-year-old Brooklyn girl was one of three people hit by stray bullets when Muhammad reportedly opened fire during a dispute [with his brother] in Times Square around 5 p.m. Saturday.

An NYPD officer was hailed as a hero after running with the girl in her arms to seek medical care. (read more)

2021-05-12 h
BLACK HACKS DIDN'T COVER TRACKS

3 [black] U.S. soldiers charged with supplying firearms used in recent Chicago shootings, homicides

Three U.S. Army soldiers have been charged in federal court for allegedly supplying guns used in recent Chicago shootings and homicides.

Demarcus Adams, 21, Jarius Brunson, 22, and Brandon Miller, 22, all enlisted members of the U.S. Army and stationed at the Fort Campbell, were arrested Tuesday morning for their alleged involvement.

The investigation into the soldiers began after one person was shot and killed and seven others were wounded at a South Side birthday party on March 26. Police said five of the firearms were purchased from Federal Firearms Licensed dealers in the Clarksville, Tennessee area.

Further investigation identified Adams, Brunson and Miller as the alleged majority purchasers of the firearms.

Authorities believe the trio purchases 91 firearms from multiple FFLs in Clarksville and in Kentucky.

Once the firearms were purchased, which happened during the last five months, Miller then would allegedly provide them to people he knew in Chicago, according to the criminal complaint.

On April 28, a federal search warrant was executed at the home of Miller and Adams in Clarksville, where 49 empty firearms cases were recovered. Many of these empty cases were matched to firearms recovered by the Chicago Police Department at the scene of recent shootings and homicides.

They have been charged with transferring a firearm to an out-of-state resident; making false statements during the purchase of a firearm; engaging in the business without a firearms license; wire fraud; money laundering; and conspiracy to commit Title 18 offenses.

If convicted, the defendants face up to 20 years in prison. (read more)

2021
-05-12 g
DON'T KNOW JACK? TRY THIS HACK..

Mathematics for gamblers

If philosophers and mathematicians struggle with probability, can gamblers really hope to grasp their losing game?

A mathematician, a philosopher and a gambler walk into a bar. As the barman pulls each of them a beer, he decides to stir up a bit of trouble. He pulls a die from his pocket and rolls it ostentatiously on the bar counter: it comes up with a 1.

The mathematician says: ‘The probability that 1 would come up is 1/6, and at the next throw it will be the same. If we roll the die infinitely many times, the relative frequency of the number 1 will converge to 1/6, that is, to one occurrence every six throws.’

The philosopher strokes her chin, and remarks: ‘Well, this doesn’t mean we won’t get the number at the next throw. Actually, it’s physically possible to have the same number on the next 1,000 throws, although that’s highly improbable.’

The gambler says: ‘I know you’re both right, but I wouldn’t bet on that number for the next throw.’

‘Why not?’ asks the mathematician.

‘Because I trust mathematics, and so I expect that number to come up about once every six throws,’ the gambler answers. ‘Having the same number twice in a row is a rare event. Why would that happen right now?’

The gambler’s ‘argument’ is a mix of conceptual inadequacy, misinterpretation, irrelevant application of mathematics, and misleading use of language. She thinks that she has some new information that will increase her chances of winning – that there are now five numbers to choose from instead of six, and as such the randomness of the game is ‘losing its strength’. This sort of belief reinforces a gambler’s impulse to bet – it won’t make her quit the game, but rather continue gambling.

Some people believe that confronting problem gamblers with the ‘reality’ of mathematics – a kind of mathematical counselling, often called ‘facing the odds’ – can help them overcome it. After all, since our earliest school days, many of us have learned to trust mathematics as the provider of necessary and logical truths. But we also trust our senses, as well as the patterns we discern from our experiences and the words we use to communicate with one another. Mathematics has its own language, and the extent to which we should trust mathematics depends on how we interpret these words, especially when applied to physical reality. In fact, understanding gamblers’ relationship to maths reveals something deeper about the nature of mathematics itself.

I don’t gamble, and I suspect few mathematicians do – or at least, they don’t gamble to get rich. In my youth I was fascinated by games of chance, and loved to play them so I could to watch probability ‘at work’. But after studying mathematics and its philosophy in more depth, my interest in such games vanished. I came to see them as simply mathematical models wearing sparkling clothes. Instead, I wanted to figure out how I could help other people to see them in the same way.

All games of chance – whether casino games such as roulette, craps, blackjack and slots, or lottery and bingo, or card games such as poker or bridge – rely on certain basic statistical and probabilistic models. Uncertainty is built into them, which is what makes games ‘fun’ to play and also explains their continued existence. Casino games would never run if ‘the house’ wasn’t confident that they’d always win in the end. The mathematics of the games, including their rules and payout schedules, assures the house will profit in aggregate, regardless of individual behaviour.

In mathematical terms, this guarantee is expressed through the fact that the house edge (HE) of a game is positive. The expected value of a bet (EV) is defined as follows:

(probability of winning) × (payoff if you win) + (probability of losing) × (loss if you lose)

The HE of a game is defined as the opposite of the expected value calculated for all possible bets (HE = −EV). For example, in European Roulette, a wheel spins and you have to decide where you think a small ball will land. There are 37 numbers (0 to 36). If you bet $1 on one number (called a straight-up bet), the payoff is 35 times what you bet, and the probability of winning is 1/37. So the EV of that bet is:

(1/37) × $35 + (36/37) × (−$1)

That is about −$0.027 or, as a percentage, 2.7 per cent of the initial bet. EV can be read as an average; in our example, you might expect to lose on average $2.70 at every 100 plays with that bet over the long run. This means that European Roulette has a house edge of 2.7 per cent. This is the house’s share of all the income produced by that game in the form of bets over the long run.

From a player’s point of view, a positive house edge should mean that she can’t make a living off that game: over the long run, the house will have an advantage. That’s why a pragmatic principle of safe gambling behaviour is: ‘When you make a satisfactory win, take the money and get out of there.’

The gambler’s ‘argument’ in the opening story illustrates a whole spectrum of misconceptions that fuel games of chance. There’s the so-called ‘gambler’s fallacy’, where someone believes that a series of bad plays will be followed by a winning outcome, in order for the randomness to be ‘restored’. Then there’s the conjunction fallacy, when the gambler estimates the probability of a combination of events to be higher than the probability of one of those events. A particular instance of this arises when someone uses addition (rather than multiplication) to estimate the probability of two or more independent events. For example, in sports betting, someone might bet once on several ‘almost sure’ outcomes occurring together, thinking that it’s likely that all the house’s favourite teams will win – ignoring the fact that the product of the probabilities of several wins is a number significantly lower than the probability of any individual win.

Naturally, the gambling industry makes the most of such fallacies. Another gambling misconception is the near-miss effect, when an outcome differs just a little from a winning one, which induces the gambler to believe that she was ‘so close’ that she should try again. Here you might think of slots, scratch cards or lottery, where such events are the most frequent, but virtually any game of chance produces them. The near-miss effect involves incorrectly estimating probabilities, but is also linked to other conceptual inadequacies regarding conditional probabilities and time-dependence. In such cases, the gambler mentally splits the winning outcome between the ‘matching’ and the ‘non-matching’ part – an action that’s mathematically irrelevant – and develops an overconfidence in a new occurrence of the ‘matching’ part in a future play. This ignores the actual probability of the occurrence of the ‘non-matching’ part, and the conjunction of the two predicted events which would happen at different moments; the ‘so close’ is actually ‘so far’ in probability terms and figures. All such cognitive distortions are recognised as important risk factors for problem gambling.

Gambling has existed since antiquity, but in the past 30 years it’s grown at a spectacular rate, turbocharged by the internet and globalisation. Problem gambling has grown accordingly, and become particularly prevalent in the teenage population. Even more troublingly, a study in 2013 reported that slightly over 90 per cent of problem gamblers don’t seek professional help. Gambling addiction is part of a suite of damaging and unhealthy behaviours that people do despite warnings, such as smoking, drinking or compulsive video gaming. It draws on a multitude of cognitive, social and psychobiological factors.

Psychological and medical studies have found that some people are more likely to develop a gambling disorder than others, depending on their social condition, age, education and experiences such as trauma, domestic violence and drug abuse. Problem gambling also involves complex brain chemistry, as gambling stimulates the release of multiple neurotransmitters including serotonin and dopamine, which in turn create feelings of pleasure and the attendant urge to maintain them. Serotonin is known as the happiness hormone, and typically follows a sense of release from stress or fear. Dopamine is associated with intense pleasure, released when we’re engaged in activities that deserve a reward, and precisely when that reward occurs – seeing the ball landing on the number we’ve bet on, or hearing the sound of the slot machine showing a winning payline.

For the most part, gambling addiction is viewed as a medical and psychological problem, though this hasn’t resulted in widely effective prevention and treatment programmes. That might be because the research has often focused on the origins and prevalence of addiction, and less on the cognitive premises and mechanisms that actually take place in the brain. It’s a controversial area, but this arguable lack of clinical effectiveness doesn’t appear to be specific to gambling; it applies to other addictions as well, and might even extend to some superstitions and irrational beliefs.

Can a proper presentation of the mathematical facts help gambling addiction? While most casino moguls simply trust the mathematics – the probability theory and applied statistics behind the games – gamblers exhibit a strange array of positions relative to the role of maths. While no study has offered an exhaustive taxonomy, what we know for sure is that some simply don’t care about it; others care about it, trust it, and try to use it in their favour by developing ‘winning strategies’; while others care about it and interpret it in making their gambling predictions – just like the gambler in our anecdote.

Certain problem gambling programmes frame the distortions associated with gambling as an effect of a poor mathematical knowledge. Some clinicians argue that reducing gambling to mere mathematical models and bare numbers – without sparkling instances of success and the ‘adventurous’ atmosphere of a casino – can lead to a loss of interest in the games, a strategy known as ‘reduction’ or ‘deconstruction’. The warning messages involve statements along the lines of: ‘Be aware! There is a big problem with those irrational beliefs. Don’t think like that!’ But whether this kind of messaging really works is an open question. Beginning a couple of decades ago, several studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that teaching basic statistics and applied probability theory to problem gamblers would change their behaviour. Overall, these studies have yielded contradictory, non-conclusive results, and some found that mathematical education yielded no change in behaviour. So what’s missing?

One problem is that interventions to promote mathematical literacy among gamblers generally push the message that gamblers should unconditionally trust mathematics. But recall in the opening story that the philosopher didn’t actually trust what the mathematician said; she trusted mathematics, sure, but she didn’t trust it as applied in the context of the die roll. The problem for gamblers isn’t so much a lack of trust in mathematics as much as an incorrect application and interpretation. After all, the gambler did trust mathematics, she just misinterpreted it.

The limitations of mathematical counselling make sense when we recall that the mathematics of ‘real world’ events are far from pure numbers; rather, they take the form of descriptions, strategies, predictions and expectations, all mediated by language and meaning. By making a distinction between pure and applied mathematics, between truths that are necessary and those that are contingent, and noticing how often we mix mathematical and non-mathematical terms ourselves, we might steer ourselves on the right track to correct our cognitive distortions.

No single expert or guide can help us here. We need the combined wisdom of the mathematician, the philosopher and the psychological counsellor to help combat the forces that sustain problem gambling. Indeed, some of the associated cognitive distortions tap into genuine philosophical debates, such as over the meaning of randomness, something that’s uncontrolled and proceeds without any rules. Mathematicians and philosophers struggle to agree on a rigorous and universally accepted definition, despite the centrality of the concept to probability theory.

In the early 20th century, Émile Borel and Richard von Mises tried to mathematically define a ‘random sequence’, such as what would occur if you flipped a coin repeatedly under precisely the same conditions, and wrote down the results as a sequence of 0s and 1s (0 for the heads, and 1 for the tails). This is known as a trivial random sequence. Borel and von Mises tried to describe in mathematical axioms the fact that there’s no rule for such a sequence, and each new term is independent of what went before – but other mathematicians and philosophers objected to their definitions. Some objections argued that the empirical setup was indispensable to the description but couldn’t itself be a mathematical object; other objections were more fundamental.

The philosophical complexity of applied mathematics makes it clear that simply learning to ‘trust’ mathematics is a naive prescription for gambling addiction. Applied mathematics involves establishing an equivalence between the empirical, real-world context (the target domain) and abstract mathematical structures (the source domain). To do this, we need to idealise away from the messiness of the real world with models. After ‘doing the math’ with the help of the mathematical theory in the source domain, the derived mathematical truths are interpreted back in the target domain via our models, where we can create predictions, representations and descriptions.

When we put abstract, formal mathematics in empirical situations such as games of chance, we ultimately rely on language to express newly inferred relations as truths. However, these ‘truths’ are no longer necessary truths; they depend on meanings, interpretations and context. As such, they’re contingent truths. If we’re too zealous in abstracting or idealising our empirical context, or if we poorly interpret the mathematical truths in the target domain, such modelling can lead to erroneous results. When this happens, it’s not pure mathematics that’s to blame, but the whole setup.

All of this shows that any application of mathematics is a balance between relevance and convenience – a choice, a refinement, and finally a cross-checking against the real world. All this relies as much on a mathematician’s or scientist’s intuition as it does on scientific or mathematical rigour. This analysis makes it clear that we shouldn’t blindly trust applied mathematics – which is not to say that we don’t trust the pure mathematics behind it, but simply that we need to be mindful of the place of language and interpretation.

The same goes for the mathematics of gambling. Whether we talk about describing games or making predictions about bets, the results of any mathematical model depend on language for interpretation and empirical validation. Take the statement that ‘the relative frequency of the die showing a 1 will converge towards 1/6 with the number of throws’. One interpretation is the gambler’s expression that: ‘I expect that number to come up about once every six throws.’ Here, ‘about’ means ‘on average’ or ‘approximately’ – but this wording doesn’t reflect all the mathematical meaning of ‘converge’, which assumes an infinite series of experiments for the limit to be approached. Moreover, it is the relative frequency (the ratio between the number of occurrences and the number of experiments) that approaches that limit and not the absolute frequency, which seems to be the reference of the gambler’s words. We might say in this case that we have a poor model, due to interpretation and language; and it will be empirically invalidated when 1 comes up twice in a row in a certain period of time.

Perhaps most problematically for gamblers, statistical models are grounded in probability theory, one of the fields in mathematics most open to philosophical debate. ‘Probability’ carries various senses and meanings. You might think of it in terms of the recorded relative frequency of the occurrence of an event, like if a roulette ball landed on a red number in 38 per cent of the plays during a period of time. Or you might take it to be the payout percentage that the game offers (usually called ‘game odds’, like 3:2 in betting on the outcome of a match, which would translate to a 40 per cent probability of losing). Or you might perceive it as a physical feature of the game in question, its inner potential to produce a certain frequency of outcome – so if you rolled a pair of dice over and over, and noted that the pair 5 and 2 appeared 150 times in 3,000 plays, you might think of it as a property of the game, which then gives a game-dependent ‘probability’ of 5 per cent.

However, its standard mathematical meaning is so-called Kolmogorovian probability, a way of measuring likelihood. There are, however, other concepts of probability, such as inductive, propensic, subjective, frequentist or classical (Laplacian). All these versions are also mathematical in nature – and perhaps surprisingly, many gamblers’ subjective personal perceptions of the concept of probability more or less match some of these theoretical concepts. Other statistical terms can be imported and used in ordinary language too, such as ‘expectation’, ‘mean’ or ‘average’, with their usual, not-purely-mathematical meanings.

Perhaps the biggest difficulty with using mathematical concepts in the context of gambling is that all probability theory is grounded in the idea of infinity – yet all our gaming experiences are finite. This inconsistency lies behind many cognitive distortions, including those of the gambler in our anecdote. She evaluated the probability of 1 coming up twice in a row on the basis of (finite) past observations, extending what was ‘rare’ for her to ‘rare’ in general. The problem is amplified by words that carry a different meaning in mathematical and non-mathematical contexts. An illustrative example is the concept of an event: in mathematics, it’s a formal element of a set, having nothing to do with the complexity of what an event means in real life.

Overall, if we think that mathematics can provide any sort of ‘fix’ for problem gamblers, then we must be careful. It’s certainly an important cognitive asset for gamblers to know just how unlikely winning outcomes are – some with probabilities close to zero, which would mean they’d have to play for several lifetimes, sometimes in the order of thousands, to get close to a probability of one. Nonetheless, ‘facing the odds’ or learning to trust mathematics often isn’t enough. It’s not sufficient to send gamblers ‘back to school’. They also need to trust the role of representation and description in the mathematical models, yet to be careful when interpreting the real-life predictions obtained through these models. That requires a sophisticated grasp of which models and idealisations are adequate for the reality they try to describe, and which are irrelevant or misleading. Since this concerns the relationship between mathematics and reality, which also relies upon language, the issue falls within the philosophy of mathematics and mathematical modelling.

So, getting to the bottom of our gambler’s problem is likely to require a conversation between the mathematician and the philosopher, who in turn need to guide the cognitive psychologist about how to talk to her client. Such an interdisciplinary venture isn’t necessarily as difficult a task as it seems: after all, cognitive psychology and the philosophy of knowledge and language share a common intellectual boundary in many respects.

Sometimes truth is not as straightforward as being validated or invalidated by empirical evidence or even scientific facts. Sometimes it originates in the very nature of the arguments we make, including the language we use to express them. Mathematics has its own terminology, and the truths of applied mathematics are sensitive to the way we understand and express them. The cognitive distortions associated with gambling are a relevant example of such ‘sensitive’ truths. What’s remarkable is that fighting them reveals something about both the nature of mathematics and the nature of human understanding – and that knowing when not to trust mathematics is as crucial as knowing when to trust it. (read more)

2021-05-12 f
THEY CAN'T HACK IT

Dear European Men: You Are Pathetic Pussies - Iben Thranholm (Video)

In Europe, the few remaining men who are not actually gay, act like they are. 

Immigrants are behaving like the Kennedys on Spring Break, and women are getting worried...

This article from our archives was first published on RI in March 2019

The gender-bending Europeans are finally getting their comeuppance. 

They are having their asses kicked and their women fondled by normal red-blooded Syrians and Libyans whom they were stupid enough to bomb into total social collapse.

Yes, that would be you Cameron, Hollande, Sarkozy, and Merkel.

Their response has been to cover up the facts, or hand out instructional cartoons to immigrants explaining to them that one shouldn't grope the womenfolk, which most likely simply convinced the immigrants that they can grope all they want because only a wuss would think of something so stupid.

via The Saker:

I don’t know if Iben Thranholm gets as much hate mail as I do (though I suspect that she probably does), but I will say that I totally agree with her: the modern European culture has “de-masculinized” European men no less than it has de-feminized European women.

It is good to see somebody, especially two thoughtful women like Naouai and Thranholm, having the courage to speak the truth and not be terrorized by the “you are blaming the victim” mob.

Of course, neither Naouai nor Thranholm are excusing the thugs who are how regularly assaulting women all over Europe, but they are explaining, at least in part, why such mass assaults are possible in the first place (the mindset of these thugs) and why so many men (cops or civilians) just stood by or looked away.
(read more)

2021
-05-12 e
PARTY HACK SMACKED

Liz Cheney is a bitter, horrible human being. I watched her yesterday and realized how bad she is for the Republican Party. She has no personality or anything good having to do with politics or our Country. She is a talking point for Democrats, whether that means the Border, the gas lines, inflation, or destroying our economy. She is a warmonger whose family stupidly pushed us into the never-ending Middle East Disaster, draining our wealth and depleting our Great Military, the worst decision in our Country’s history. I look forward to soon watching her as a Paid Contributor on CNN or MSDNC!

- Donald J. Trump,  9:36am May 12, 2021



2021-05-12 d
PARTY HACK SACKED


House GOP Conference removes Cheney via voice vote

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) May 12, 2021



2021-05-12 c
PARTY HACK BEFORE THE SACK


Freedom only survives if we protect it. We must speak the truth.
The election was not stolen. America has not failed. pic.twitter.com/H4KrMxkPdy


— Rep. Liz Cheney (@RepLizCheney) May 12, 2021


2021
-05-12 b
HACK? WHAT HACK?

The pipeline wasn’t hacked.

It seems that some people actually believe that the Colonial pipeline was hacked due to inept security. It wasn’t hacked. That was a special op that fits neatly into the agenda of The Great Reset.

Tell me you are shocked that a cyber-attack narrative has commenced, and that Russia is already being blamed for it. Tell me you are shocked that it has been fabricated in such a way as to provoke mass fear; cause a “shortage” of a necessary commodity; and fortify the government’s climate change agenda.

This will be the first of *many* such contrived Narratives around “cyber-attacks.” This has long been a known master plan designed to destroy American mobility and place America firmly under the boot of The Great Reset.

Why would anyone ever think that all of these events for the last 14 months are mere happenstance?


Campbell

2021-05-12 a

“After hydrogen, the most common thing in the universe is stupidity.”

Albert Einstein

2021
-05-11 j
THE SCORCHED EARTH POLICY


Biden’s First 100 Days Accomplishments:

– Kill Keystone XL Pipeline
– Gas Lines
– $3 Gas (National Avg)
– Inflation
– Crumbling Dollar
– Rising Unemployment
– Open Border Crisis
– Antifa Terror Squads
– Skyrocketing Homicides
– Israel Burning
– China Rising
– Vaccinated Masking

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) May 11, 2021



2021-05-11 i
THE GET-OUT-OF-JAIL-FREE POLICY

Girls in Prison

The 15 year-old [black girl] who killed Uber Eats driver Mohammad Anwar
has pled guilty to felony murder. Because of her age, she will be remanded
to juvenile detention and will be released when she turns 18.


— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) May 11, 2021





2021-05-11 h
THE KEEP-THEM-IN-THE-DARK POLICY

Why Is the Government Hiding January 6 Video Footage?

The American public still doesn’t know exactly what happened on January 6—and it’s clear the government will use any means necessary to keep it that way.

Joe Biden calls it the worst attack since the Civil War. Attorney General Merrick Garland compares it to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The FBI is breaking down the doors of Iraq War veterans and small business owners who have no criminal records, and some are hauled off to rot in solitary confinement in a fetid D.C. jail, for their involvement in the alleged travesty.

The event, of course, is the roughly four-hour-long disturbance at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. As mostly nonviolent Americans dared to protest Congress’ certification of a clearly fraudulent presidential election in a place that once was considered “The People’s House,” lawmakers scurried for cover as reporters and photographers captured part of the ruckus on video and still shots to wield as political ammunition against Donald Trump and his supporters.

But have we seen a full and fair depiction of exactly what happened that day? The answer, as evidenced by an ongoing coverup by the U.S. Capitol Police and the Justice Department, clearly is no.

Almost all the January 6 video seen by the public isn’t from official government sources but by social media users and journalists on the scene. For example, the widely viewed footage of protestors occupying the Senate chamber was recorded by a New Yorker journalist.

But thousands of hours of real-time footage is in the hands of the Capitol Police—and that agency, along with government lawyers and federal judges, is using every legal trick possible to keep the trove hidden from the public even as clips are presented in court as evidence against hundreds of January 6 defendants.

According to an affidavit filed in March by Thomas DiBiase, the Capitol Police department’s general counsel, the building is monitored 24/7 by an “extensive system of cameras” positioned both inside and outside the building as well as near other congressional offices on the grounds.

The system captured more than 14,000 hours of footage between noon and 8 p.m. on January 6; the archive was made available to two Democratic-controlled congressional committees, the FBI, and the D.C. Metropolitan Police department. (After a request by Congress, the agency reportedly handed over footage from the entire 24-hour period.)

Capitol Police also produced selective clips for Democratic House impeachment managers to use in the trial against Donald Trump.

But Capitol Police argue that making all the tapes available to defense attorneys —let alone to the American public—could provoke future violence. “The Department has significant concerns with the release of any of its footage to defendants in the Capitol attack cases unless there are safeguards in place to prevent its copying and dissemination,” DiBiase wrote March 17. “Our concern is that providing unfettered access to hours of extremely sensitive information to defendants who already have shown a desire to interfere with the democratic process will . . . [be] passed on to those who might wish to attack the Capitol again.”

The Justice Department, in numerous cases, is seeking protective orders to rigorously limit how surveillance video is handled by defense attorneys. Recordings have been deemed “highly sensitive” government material subject to onerous rules; the accused only have access to the evidence in a supervised setting. Clips cannot be copied, downloaded, shared, or reproduced in any fashion.

“Defense counsel may not provide a copy of Highly Sensitive materials to Defendant or permit Defendant to view such materials unsupervised by defense counsel or an attorney, investigator, paralegal, or support staff person employed by defense counsel,” Judge Amit Mehta wrote in a protective order related to the conspiracy case against members of the Oath Keepers. “The parties agree that defense counsel or an attorney, investigator, paralegal, or support staff person employed by defense counsel, may supervise Defendant by allowing access to Highly Sensitive materials through a cloud-based delivery system that permits Defendant to view the materials but does not permit Defendant the ability to download.”

Sounds legit.

Fighting Back Against the Blackout

But defense attorneys and the media now are fighting the video blackout. During a detention hearing last month for the two men accused of spraying officer Brian Sicknick—both have been behind bars and denied bail since their arrests in March—defense lawyers objected to the government’s use of “cherry-picked” video they couldn’t see in its full context which, if examined, might contain exculpatory evidence.

Under pressure from a group of media outlets, the government finally released what it claims is the incriminating video showing the chemical spray “attack” against Sicknick. (It didn’t.) The choppy video included recordings from several surveillance cameras, a few D.C. police officers, and a bystander.

Journalists continue to be frustrated by the Justice Department’s suppression tactics. In a plea last week to Beryl Howell, chief judge of the D.C. District Court handling all the January 6 cases, 14 news organizations asked for better access to video evidence presented in court. (Virtual court proceedings further help prosecutors keep the clips under wraps.)

“[T]he press and public have not been able to access these videos on the Court’s electronic dockets,” lawyers representing CNN, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal and others wrote in a May 3 letter. “Delayed access to these historic records shuts the public out of an important part of the administration of justice.” The government, the lawyers told Howell, refuses to give a “substantive answer” as to why the video evidence isn’t publicly available and listed several cases where surveillance footage was played in court but not otherwise accessible.

The secret video archive of January 6 isn’t the only recording under scrutiny. It’s also unclear whether Capitol Police kept the footage from January 5. DiBiase said surveillance video is routinely deleted after 30 days; only a “very limited” number of clips from January 5 were given to the U.S. Attorney in D.C., the office handling the massive investigation.

It would be very convenient for the Capitol Police—no objective party in this saga since it launched the lie about Sicknick’s death—to purge footage from January 5 so defense attorneys and the public cannot see what sort of activity took place the day before the “insurrection.”

So what, exactly, is the government trying to hide? How can activity inside and outside a public building be considered “highly sensitive?” In response to a Freedom of Information Act filing by Judicial Watch, Capitol Police told the group the recordings are not “public records.” But of course they are. A security system controlled by a federal agency in a public building paid for by taxpayers to conduct the public business of public officials is most certainly a public record.

Even if legal loopholes allow for such an exemption, the greater public interest should supersede any technicalities. Major parts of the original narrative already have fallen apart, including the story that officer Sicknick was murdered by Trump supporters and the myth it was an “armed insurrection”; the full account of what prompted the killing of [white] Ashli Babbitt by an unidentified [black] Capitol cop is still unknown.

Further, the Biden regime is weaponizing January 6 to hunt down and destroy the lives of people—many of whom committed no violent crimes—anywhere near the building that day. The Justice Department is promising to build sedition cases; Biden’s intelligence chiefs are operating outside their authorization in their effort to portray regular Americans as domestic terrorists.

A president was impeached for his alleged role. Republican lawmakers continue to face threats for objecting to the election results in swing states. And millions of Trump voters, by extension, are considered conspiracy theorists and wannabe “insurrectionists.”

There’s only one reason why the Justice Department wants to keep the footage under seal: it contradicts most if not all of the claims advanced by Democrats and the media over the past four months.

Republicans, to the extent they can or will, and the media should demand the release of all the footage. Ditto for families of the defendants. The American public still doesn’t know exactly what happened on January 6—and it’s clear the government will use any means necessary to keep it that way. (read more)

2021-05-11 g
THE REMAIN HEALTHY & SANE POLICY

I’m Still Not Getting the [Experimental Gene Therapy] Vaccine

I’ve got news for you: If you spend all your time worrying about getting sick, you’re sick already.

Nearly 50 percent of Americans polled think that at least some [anti-]social distancing measures will be permanent. Who can blame them? We have decided to make avoiding disease our full-time job. It’s more important than going to work or seeing your friends. It’s worth destroying the established Western social convention that we be able to see each other’s faces in public.

I’ve got news for you: If you spend all your time worrying about getting sick, you’re sick already. America is having a giant, hysterical, hypochondriacal fit.

I wrote a piece last month explaining why I wasn’t getting the vaccine. My argument boiled down to this: As a young and healthy person, there is really no upside to vaccination. I’m simply not likely to get the disease. And, say what you will, we don’t know what the long-term effects of this vaccine will be.

I spoke to a doctor on the subject last week who reported that he’d felt pressured into getting the vaccine—by his own patients! The patients don’t know anything about medicine of course, but they were nervous. So he took it to reassure them. Now he’s having a bit of vaccine regret, as it becomes clear that a large part of the nursing staff will refuse to take it. 

He doesn’t think the vaccine will do him any harm, but he doesn’t see it doing any good either: If you’re young and aren’t overweight, he says the risk from the disease is essentially zero. He also noted that, despite fact-checking stories contradicting this, the government did direct doctors to list COVID-19 as a cause of death even if it wasn’t even a proximate cause: Having tested positive at some point was enough to make you dead from coronavirus, even if you’d had a stroke while mowing your lawn.

Another doctor told me that he’d interviewed five medical professional friends of his. None of them actually knew anyone who died from the virus. He knows people must be dying from it somewhere, but it does seem a little odd. He got his vaccine too, though. Again to reassure his patients.

Another friend who met me for dinner last week came down the street wearing his mask. I knew he’d been vaccinated already. But he explained he didn’t want other people to worry. He’s wearing his mask, even though he can’t get or transmit the disease, to reassure everyone else. Notice a pattern?

This is very considerate of my friend, who is a wonderful and considerate guy. But it’s not surprising he feels compelled to do this, given the huge social pressures being applied. Everyone has been made suspicious of everyone else. And though Facebook will try to foist on you (over and over and over again) a little picture for your profile letting everyone know you’ve been vaccinated, there is no equivalent for public display. Perhaps everyone who has been vaccinated should wear a little armband. Or people who haven’t been vaccinated could be forced to wear some kind of colored patch on their clothing so people can know to avoid them. (I am really quite sure somebody is already working on this and thinks it’s a great idea.)

The social-pressure aspect is serious business. In one day, Facebook hit me up on the subject five times: “Dan, together we can get COVID-19 vaccines to people worldwide,” “Healthcare workers get their vaccines . . . share their experiences,” “Life after vaccination” (yes, seriously), “Dan, join the millions of people who’ve added a COVID-19 vaccine frame” to their profile pictures—and then it shows me all my friends who did the socially responsible thing. I open the Uber app and it asks me if I want to book a ride to get a vaccine.

Does any of this sound a little disturbing?

One friend who read my last vaccine piece asked: Shouldn’t I get the vaccine not for myself, but for society at large? Clearly, a great many people have done so. In fact, I’d be shocked to learn that more than half of the people getting the shot actually believe it’s good for themselves. Perhaps it impresses you to think that everybody is looking out for everybody else. But to me, it seems as though everybody is scared of everybody else. We’re frightened. We’re sick.

I’d say this is how things would look if powerful people were exploiting our social conscience for their own ends: Create a giant amount of fear that compels people to act without question, even if they worry they may be harming themselves.

Here’s why I feel no obligation whatsoever to get the vaccine: Quite apart from it being entirely my own business (like my medical history, thank you), I will not, in theory, infect someone who is vaccinated. So my taking it is irrelevant except to myself. If everyone in society who is actually worried about getting sick takes it, our mission should be accomplished. By and large, the only people in the hospitals will be stupid guys like me who didn’t get vaccinated.

But the governor of New York is pulling out every repulsive stop in his fetid brain: If I don’t get the vaccine, he tells me, I risk killing my grandmother (who has already been vaccinated). So does this vaccine work or does it not? And what is the real purpose behind forcing everyone to take it?

If you believe the vaccine is effective and not just some social totem, you should be allowed to stop wearing your mask when you get it. You shouldn’t have to wear a mask in the subways or at the museum or on a plane. And yet you still do. So either the people in charge don’t think the vaccine is effective, or else they’re so obsessed with their new level of control that they have no intention of relaxing COVID requirements ever (see paragraph one). 

We’ve managed to create an environment where the real risk from coronavirus is being attacked by someone who doesn’t think you’re taking your social responsibilities seriously. Well done Cuomo, well done Fauci, well done CDC, well done Facebook: Coronavirus has made some of us sick, but you’ve managed to make all of us sick.

Either way, I’m not taking it. (read more)

2021
-05-11 f
THE REMAIN-IN-MEXICO POLICY WAS LESS BRUTAL


Last night I shared a heartbreaking photo of young children found by a farmer
on his land in Quemado. While we thank God they were found alive, these tragic
scenes are happening more & more.


Today I visited with him & talked about the border crisis. We need a solution now.
pic.twitter.com/Zzvk4UgAGc


— Tony Gonzales (@TonyGonzales4TX) May 10, 2021


2021-05-11 e
THE REMAIN-IN-MEXICO POLICY WAS LESS EXPENSIVE


The price of Biden’s open borders agenda continues to grow:

“The Biden administration has reportedly spent $3 billion in contracts to house
unaccompanied children at the border… $2 billion of which were ‘no-bid’ contracts
awarded to three recipients.” https://t.co/8T3zzCqrK4


— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 10, 2021



2021-05-11 d
TAINTED THINKING
(The road to "Race Hell" is paved with leftist white virtue-signaling.)

Republicans Aren’t Obsessed With Critical Race Theory, White Democrats Are
 
It turns out Ibram X. Kendi’s core constituency is — surprise! — white readers of The Atlantic

Do Republicans have an “obsession” with or a “fixation” on critical race theory? The Atlantic’s Adam Harris sure thinks so. He penned an article last week explaining this supposed obsession, making note of various GOP bills in state legislatures and Congress that would prohibit the teaching of critical race theory in public schools, or bar government contractors from training that promotes “division between, resentment of, or social justice for” groups based on race, sex, or political affiliation, as one bill passed by the Arkansas legislature put it.

“For Republicans,” wrote Harris, “the end goal of all these bills is clear: initiating another battle in the culture wars and holding on to some threadbare mythology of the nation that has been challenged in recent years.” The GOP, he adds, is “fixated” on nothing more than an “academic approach.”

But critical race theory isn’t just an academic approach, and Republicans aren’t the ones who initiated this battle. They’re responding — rather mildly, given the stakes — to an aggressive, long-term campaign on the left to ratchet up racial tension, divide Americans by race, and insert frankly racist ideas into every facet of public life as part of a larger strategy to gain and wield political power.

Even if you agree, as Harris seems to, with critical race theory gurus like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, who teach that people should be treated differently based on their race, the sudden ubiquity of critical race theory and its accompanying jargon — “white privilege,” “racial equity,” “systemic racism” — isn’t because GOP state lawmakers suddenly decided to make a fuss out of it. It’s because left-wing ideologues decided to push it in the places most familiar to them: elite private schools and executive boardrooms.

That’s why private schools across the country are incorporating critical race theory into their curricula, ignoring the concerns of parents who oppose it on the grounds that it’s academicized racist garbage. Corporate America, Big Tech, and Hollywood are all explicitly pushing critical race theory, sometimes in rather ham-fisted and offensive ways. The U.S. Navy’s top brass even included Kendi’s book, “How To Be An Antiracist,” on its 2021 reading list (prompting Republican Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn, to introduce a bill last week to prohibit the teaching of critical race theory at U.S. military academies).

On the same day last week The Atlantic published Harris’s “explainer” about GOP efforts to combat critical race theory, Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute published a trove of whistleblower documents related to the Walt Disney Corporation’s “diversity and inclusion” program, somewhat creepily called “Reimagine Tomorrow.”

The documents are, or should be, a scandal and an embarrassment to Disney because they lay bare a program that is openly racist despite being framed as a program about “antiracism.” In a training module called, “Allyship for Race Consciousness,” writes Rufo, “Disney tells employees that they should reject ‘equality,’ with a focus on ‘equal treatment and access to opportunities,’ and instead strive for ‘equity,’ with a focus on ‘the equality of outcome.’”

Disney is also actively encouraging racial segregation among employees as part of its Orwellian-named “diversity and inclusion” program, with “racially segregated ‘affinity groups’ for minority employees,” reports Rufo. Disney employees, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Rufo that these racial affinity groups are technically open to employees of all races but in practice “have become almost entirely segregated by race, with the occasional exception for white ‘executive champions’ who attend on behalf of corporate leadership.”

In his Atlantic article, Harris describes Rufo as the person who “bears the most responsibility for the surge in conservative interest in critical race theory.” That may be so, but it’s not because Rufo is making this stuff up. It’s actually happening, and writers like Harris are pretending that it’s healthy and necessary, not abjectly racist.

Left-Wing Whites Are in Thrall to Critical Race Theory

But does anyone outside corporate media and elite institutions believe that? When ordinary Americans read Kendi’s declaration that, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination,” do they buy it? Or is critical race theory something that appeals to a narrower and more privileged segment of society?

It appears so. A pair of academics at Yale University recently completed a study that tested the effectiveness of various types of messaging for a handful of left-wing policies, which is common enough research among political scientists. But these researchers, Josh Kalla and Micah English, framed the issues — things like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All — differently to see how it might change support for them.

For one group, they emphasized how the issues would benefit a certain racial group or promote racial equity. For another, they emphasized benefits for the working class. For a third group, they combined the race and class frames, and for the final group they didn’t emphasize any benefits but just described the policies in neutral terms.

Journalist Zaid Jilani interviewed Kalla and English on their findings, and they told him that the class frame was more effective than either the race or the race plus class frames. “After this summer, everyone wanted to believe that you know we had this great awakening that everyone now is aware of racial equity and we need to fix it, but I think our results suggest kind of the opposite,” English told Jilani.

What’s more, they found that for black voters the race and class appeals were about equally effective. According to Jilani, there was only one group in the survey for whom the race appeal was most effective: white Democrats.

Why, wonders Jilani, are white Democrats so fixated on racial messaging? “My guess is that the progressive movement is simply captured by an upper-class elite for whom anti-racism is now an all-dominating philosophy,” he writes. It might not sway voters to frame every policy debate around race, “but it probably does impress your social cohort.”

In other words, it turns out Kendi’s core constituency is — surprise! — white readers of The Atlantic. (read more)

2021-05-11 c
TAINTED ELECTION III

Mollie Hemingway Is Writing The 2020 Election Book The Media Don’t Want You To Read
 
The ruling class did everything in their power to make sure what happened in 2016 — a Donald Trump election victory — would never happen again in 2020.

If questioning the results of a presidential election were a crime, as many have asserted in the wake of the controversial 2020 election and its aftermath, nearly the entire Democratic Party and media establishment would have been incarcerated for their rhetoric following the 2016 election. In fact, the last time they accepted the legitimacy of a presidential election they lost was in 1988.

After the 2000 election, which hinged on the results of a recount in Florida, Democrats smeared President George W. Bush as “selected, not elected.” When Bush won re-election against then-Sen. John Kerry in 2004, many on the left claimed that voting machines in Ohio had been rigged to deliver fraudulent votes to Bush. HBO even produced and aired “Hacking Democracy,” a documentary that added fuel to the conspiracy theory fire of conversations about the 2004 results. But nothing holds a candle to what happened in 2016 after Donald Trump’s surprising defeat of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Rather than accept that Trump won and Clinton lost, the political and media establishments desperately sought to explain away Trump’s victory. What they settled on was a destructive conspiracy theory that crippled the government, empowered America’s adversaries, and illegally targeted innocent private citizens whose only crime was not supporting Hillary Clinton.

With baseless claims of hacked voting totals, illegal voter suppression, and extensive media manipulation, the Russian collusion hoax had it all. But more than anything, the belief that Trump stole the 2016 election had the support of the most powerful institutions, individuals, and even government agencies in the country.

“You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” Clinton told her followers in 2019.

“I know he’s an illegitimate president,” Clinton claimed of Trump a few months later. She even claimed during an interview with “CBS Sunday Morning” that “voter suppression and voter purging and hacking” were why she lost.

Former President Jimmy Carter agreed.

“[Trump] lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf,” he told NPR in 2019. “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016.”

Their view was widely shared by most prominent Democrats in Congress. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, for example, said he was skipping Trump’s inauguration in 2016 because he believed Trump was illegitimate, and that “the Russians participated in helping this man get elected.” Lewis also skipped the inauguration of President George W. Bush, claiming that Bush, too, was an illegitimate president.

A few members of Congress joined him in 2001. In 2017, one out of every three Democrats in the U.S. House boycotted Trump’s inauguration. Many said they refused to take part in the installation of an illegitimate president.

Not only did corporate media not condemn leading Democrats’ refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election, the media were also super spreaders of wild conspiracy theories about how Trump and Russia colluded to steal the election from Clinton. They dutifully regurgitated false leaks from corrupt intelligence officials suggesting that Trump and his staff had committed treason. They ran stories suggesting that Republicans who didn’t support their conspiracy theory were insufficiently loyal to the country.

Some even suggested Russia may have hacked voting machines and vote totals in a bid to steal the election from Clinton. It was all nonsense. Even Robert Mueller, who ran a multi-year and multi-million-dollar government investigation into claims that Trump personally colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin to steal the election from Clinton, found there was no evidence to support the claim.

Rather than being shunned by their peers for peddling leaks and lies that had no basis in reality, the reporters who pushed this conspiracy theory were lauded by their peers, received raises and promotions, and were given Pulitzers for “reporting” that turned out to be detached from reality.

From 2016 through 2020, the easiest way to achieve stardom on the political left was to loudly proclaim your belief that 2016 was an illegitimate election stolen by the Russians on behalf of a corrupt traitor. Dissent, up to and including the assertion that the President of the United States was a secret Russian spy, was the highest form of patriotism.

And then 2020 happened.

With the snap of their fingers, America’s electoral system went from irredeemably corrupt and broken in 2016 to unquestionably safe in 2020. Voting methods that were allegedly used to steal elections in 2004 and 2016 suddenly became sacrosanct and impenetrable in 2020. Whereas so-called election experts repeatedly warned pre-2020 about the pitfalls of electronic voting and widespread mail-in balloting, by November of 2020, any discussion about the vulnerabilities of those methods was declared to be verboten.

If, as I believe, concerns about election integrity were valid in 2000, and 2004, and 2008, and 2012, and 2016, then surely those concerns were even more valid in 2020, an election unlike any other in American history due to the COVID-19 pandemic that gripped the world and radically altered America’s electoral system.

Across the country at the state, local, and federal level, hundreds of significant structural changes to the manner and oversight of elections were instituted, resulting in what Time Magazine called a “a revolution in how people vote.” Some of these changes were enacted by state legislatures, some by courts, and others by county and state election officials. Many changes were allegedly justified by the global pandemic, although Democrats had long advocated for them and now seek to make them permanent.

The bedrock of the American republic is that elections must be free, fair, accurate, and trusted. Election lawyers will tell you that fraud is almost impossible to conclusively find after the fact, and that to fight it, strong rules and regulations are needed on the front end. That’s why Democrats and Republicans fight so bitterly about the rules and regulations that govern the process.

What happened during the 2020 election deserves to be investigated and discussed. It must be investigated and discussed, not in spite of media and political opposition to it, but because of that opposition. That is why I am writing a book about what happened before, during, and after the 2020 presidential election.

The American people deserve to know what happened. They deserve answers, even if those answers are inconvenient. They deserve to know the effect of flooding the system with tens of millions of mail-in ballots. They deserve to know how and why Big Tech and corporate political media manipulated the news to support certain political narratives while outright censoring stories they now admit were true.

The American people deserve to know why courts, without the consent of the accountable legislative bodies charged with writing election laws, were allowed to unilaterally rewrite the rules in the middle of the game. Voters deserve to know why so many in government so vociferously fought to avoid audits and recounts and hide the vote-counting process from the public.

Republicans began sounding the alarm about how difficult it might be to trust the outcome of the 2020 elections long before November. They talked about how widespread changes in the manner the country conducts elections would lead to uncertainty, confusion, and delays. They were worried about universal mail-in balloting, which led to some addresses getting a half dozen ballots for previous residents who had once registered to vote at the address.

They knew that a bipartisan commission co-chaired by Jimmy Carter himself found that absentee balloting was the largest source of potential fraud in United States elections. They were worried about how lowering, or in some cases outright eliminating, standards for signature verification on mail-in ballots could make it impossible to challenge fraudulently cast ballots.

They were worried about unsupervised drop boxes that enabled third-party ballot harvesting becoming vectors for voter fraud. They worried about how ballot management in some areas was privately funded by corporate oligarchs who are overtly hostile to the Republican Party. They continued their complaints about how lack of updates to voter rolls would cause worse problems in an election based on mail-in balloting.

Republicans also screamed bloody murder about tech censorship of conservative voices and news stories about Democrats that the public had a right to know. They were horrified by a media complex that moved from extreme partisan bias to unabashed propaganda in defense of their preferred political party. They watched as a completely legitimate story about international corruption involving the Biden family business — and implicating Joe Biden himself — was crushed by media and tech companies colluding to suppress it.

None of those problems went away after the election. If anything, the concern grew as tens of millions more Americans saw the problems associated with sloppy elections in which it takes days to find out just how many people voted, much less how they voted.

They saw how difficult it was to maintain independent oversight of the counting process, whether in Atlanta, where observers were told that counting had stopped for the night but hadn’t, or in Philadelphia, where observers were kept so far away from the ballot counting that a court had to intervene. They began to see the significance of the mad rush to change voting laws, sometimes surreptitiously or otherwise outside the purview of the state legislatures. And they saw how the media didn’t even bother investigating before dismissing all concerns about how the election was run.

The fact of the matter is that the elite powers did whatever it took to make sure that Trump lost re-election in 2020. They admitted as much in a victory lap masquerading as a news article in Time Magazine that referred to the individuals and institutions behind the efforts to oust Trump as a “well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”

The story of how these institutions worked to rig the 2020 results needs to be told, and I plan to tell it. My book, entitled, Rigged: How The Media, Big Tech, And Democrats Seized Our Elections, tells the story of how the political, media, and corporate establishments changed election laws and procedures, reduced or eliminated oversight of ballots, manipulated the COVID-19 response, stoked the violent racial unrest, published fake news, censored accurate news, and did everything in their power to make sure what happened in 2016 — a Trump election victory — would never happen again in 2020.

The book will include interviews from lawyers, campaign activists, and election officials who were on the ground in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and other swing states. It will include discussions with elected lawmakers from across the country, including senators and members of Congress, about the importance of election integrity.

My book will contain never-before-told eyewitness stories about what really went down in 2020, not just in the presidential race, but in tight House and Senate races as well. The book will contain analysis of how media and Big Tech oligarchs used their power to control information on the Internet to manipulate people’s behavior before and after the 2020 election. My book will contain not just interviews about the election with top officials from the Trump White House and presidential campaign, but also interviews with Trump himself.

It will give a behind-the-scenes look at election night at the White House, and at pivotal moments in the campaign, such as the planning and execution of the surprisingly successful Republican National Convention. It will answer which of the many fake news stories published about Trump bothered him the most, how the Democrats caught Republicans flat-footed on mail-in balloting, what the Trump administration’s biggest COVID mistake was, and who the Trump campaign thought was Biden’s best media representative. (Hint: It’s not who you think.)  And it will show what went wrong during the electoral challenges in battleground states, and who was responsible for them.

Rigged: How The Media, Big Tech, And Democrats Seized Our Elections, will be published by Regnery Publishing and is available for pre-order now. I have no doubt that the same powers that worked to oust Trump in 2020 will do everything they can to suppress this book in 2021, but I don’t care. The story has to be told. (read more)

2021-05-11 b
TAINTED ELECTION II

Critical Race Theory Illuminates Democrats’ Master Plan To End Honest Elections In America
 
Those defending the traditional American view of elections—free, open, and by secret ballot—don’t recognize the nature of the opposition.

How rights are viewed—individual or collective—explains today’s sharp disagreement over the rules for running elections, both in Congress and in states considering election integrity bills.

Democrats—specifically the dominant extremist variety—view rights through the collective lens of race. Critical race theory (CRT), based in Marxism, is essential to understanding their objectives. CRT holds that personage is irrelevant and the immutable trait of race is paramount.

Thus, by definition, all politics are “identity politics,” as declared by University of California at Berkeley School of Law professors Ian Haney-Lopez and Cheryl I. Harris, the co-founders of critical race studies at UCLA School of Law, during a roundtable last October on CRT and the 2020 election.

To The Left, Some Voters Are More Equal than Others

Writing for the Washington Monthly in February, David Adkins was more direct, writing that Republicans’ “obsession with new voter suppression laws to fix a ‘voter fraud’ problem that does not exist” amount to “new Jim Crow laws” in service of “the party of white Christian Identity.” Further, he claims all the party of “white supremacy, Bible-thumping prejudice and misogyny” has left “is opposition, voter suppression and judges.”

The late Fordham Law professor Terry Smith argued in his book, Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box that the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate needed to be changed to make them more democratic. Smith claimed evidence of racial voting behavior in the 2016 presidential election—the election immediately following Barack Obama’s two election victories. He then suggested courts could be enlisted to determine when voters were improperly biased by race and then impose remedies, of the kind one supposes would “fix” the “wrong” election results.

Because leftists hold the system to be inherently racist, then anything is justified in achieving equal outcomes to make amends for past sins and current systemic racism. Under this imperative, elections—and voting—are merely means to an end: redistributing wealth and power from the haves to the have-nots. A secret ballot cast in the privacy of the voting booth is an anachronism, and measures to make election fraud difficult are denounced as voter suppression.

In its ideal world, today’s left would conduct a census rather than hold an election.

Voting As a Group Right, Not an Individual Right

The bitter historical irony here is that John C. Calhoun, the congressman, senator, and vice president who was an ardent supporter of slavery, would agree with the idea of race determining political outcomes. His theory of concurrent majorities was adopted by CRT adherents and their proto-founders decades ago. Majorities within identifiable groups determine a concurrent majority—the operative word here being “groups.”

Recall President Bill Clinton’s failed nomination of Lani Guinier to be assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1993. Guinier specifically took issue with the concept of voting as an individual right, not a group right. Her views are now mainstream among Democratic Party leadership.

This core belief renders compromise on the conduct of elections impossible because too many Democrats believe elections must serve the purpose of rectifying racism rather than merely serving as a vehicle for public choice in representation. In this construct, elections aren’t even partisan; rather, they’re racial. Elections, therefore, must have a predetermined result—they must bend the arc of history towards racial justice (as continuously redefined by the Vanguard of the Woke).

Those defending the traditional American view of elections—free, open, and by secret ballot—often appear to be at a disadvantage for two reasons: they don’t recognize the nature of the opposition, and they are only sporadically illuminated by first principles. As a result, too frequently their arguments often devolve into partisan instinct relying on ossified talking points. This can play into the CRT opposition’s “voter suppression” claims.

Election integrity measures, correctly crafted, strengthen the moral foundation of an individual citizen’s free vote—the sacred civic act of casting a secret ballot representing the voter’s own choice undiluted by fraud, unburdened by coercion, and unbound by racial predeterminism.

Destroying the Secret Ballot

The effort to tear down traditional voting protections in service of group identity politics long predates COVID-19. In 2016 and 2017, the California legislature passed two bills that ended the state’s historical resistance to ballot trafficking.

Operatives could now be paid, by the ballot, to go door-to-door and to convalescent homes to collect votes. The method was labor intensive, and it frequently employed battalions of union activists, with the radical Service Employees International Union in the forefront.

Ballot traffickers would visit the homes of first-time voters and pressure them into requesting a mail-in ballot. The ballot traffickers would then return to the residence when the ballot was mailed out and keep returning until they secured the ballot or, if the registered voter was unmotivated to cast a ballot, “help” them vote.

Of course, voting on the kitchen table while a ballot trafficker hovers over your shoulder is hardly casting a secret ballot—but that’s not the point. Winning. That’s the point.

In this, California’s election alterations turned its voting process into something akin to a union card check election, with 22 million voters subject to pressure from union organizers. The 2018 election in California validated the weakened election code, with Democrats outperforming the national returns, picking up three seats in the state Senate, five in the state Assembly, and seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Painfully learning their lessons, Republicans fought back in 2020, reclaiming four of the seven congressional seats previously lost by deploying ballot drop boxes in front of churches and gun shows.

Dear Republicans: Don’t Do What California Did

Unlike in California, Texas asks for a government-issued photo ID to vote in person. There is no such safeguard when voting by mail, which is why Texas election law has sought to limit voting by mail to those 65 and older, the disabled, and those out of their home county during an election.

Texas tightened its rules against paid ballot trafficking in 2017 (I testified for the bill). Even so, in the 2018 election cycle, the use of mail-in ballots expanded significantly as Sen. Ted Cruz fought off Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s $80 million challenge (backed by millions more poured into the Lone Star State in the perennial effort to turn Texas blue). Statistical evidence suggests campaign operatives and independent groups greatly expanded the use of mail-in ballots—even to the point of violating election law restrictions—to aid in the effort to beat Cruz.

In this, the 2018 Texas mail-in ballot effort saw the statewide partisan deployment of what previously had been routinely used to enable mere garden-variety local corruption. Techniques corrupt political machines used to harvest the votes of seniors and the poor were now being tested with a broader demographic in a wider geographic area.

This makes perfect sense when we consider that the CRT-informed left views voting as a collective right. They believe seniors, the infirm, and minorities would vote a certain way—if they knew what was best for them. As a result, when a ballot trafficker, working on behalf of the collective, “helps” someone to vote the right way, he is performing a righteous task.

As with Georgia, Texas is actively considering legislation to secure its elections, reducing the opportunity for fraud. Some form of voter ID for mail-in ballots should be part of this effort, as is now required in six other states.

As a final note about mail-in ballots that also illuminates the moment. For more than two decades The New York Times warned of the vulnerability of mail-in ballots to fraud—until it was no longer useful to do so in 2020.

What Is at Stake?

At the federal level, H.R. 1 passed the House of Representatives on a vote of 220 to 210 on March 3. It awaits an uncertain fate in the U.S. Senate. The bill would impose California standards on all federal elections nationwide.

“California standards” in this context essentially mean no standards: no verification of voter eligibility, no effective voter identification, no proper maintenance of voter lists, and a significant expansion of voting by mail—the form of voting most vulnerable to fraud, manipulation, and voter intimidation.

H.R. 1 is likely unconstitutional federal overreach, despite the bill’s pious invocation of “authority pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the right to vote.” That said, it may crush the filibuster (now said to be a racist relic in the face of a 232-year history to the contrary) on its way to President Joe Biden’s desk.

If H.R. 1 does become law, some states plan on bifurcating their elections, federal and all others, to avoid this federal bulldozing of any semblance of election integrity. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott remarked during a Fox News interview that “the federal government can… (constitutionally) …regulate elections as it concerns federal officials. However, they cannot regulate elections concerning state officials. And so states like Texas and other states, we will just pull out of having elections at the same time that the federal elections take place, so we’ll be able to ensure the integrity of the election process in Texas, regardless of what H.R. 1 does.”

The U.S. Senate’s version of the bill, S.B. 1, is headed for committee markup on May 11.

The battle to mend election safeguards weakened by the left’s well-funded lawfare in the lead-up to the 2020 election is not about expanding the opportunity to vote or voter suppression. It’s about closing off avenues to election fraud in service of a leftwing cadre motivated by critical race theory—a vanguard that sees America and its Constitution as irredeemably deserving destruction. (read more)

2021-05-11 a
TAINTED ELECTION I

"The major Michigan Election Fraud case has just filed a bombshell pleading claiming votes were intentionally switched from President Trump to Joe Biden. The number of votes is MASSIVE and determinative. This will prove true in numerous other States. All Republicans must UNIFY and not let this happen. If a thief robs a jewelry store of all of its diamonds (the 2020 Presidential Election), the diamonds must be returned. The Fake News media refuses to cover the greatest Election Fraud in the history of our Country. They have lost all credibility, but ultimately, they will have no choice!"
Donald J. Trump, 8:52pm May 10, 2021

______________________

Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL, http://www.usaapay.com/comm.html

______________________


2021 ARCHIVE

January 1 - 6

January 7 - 13

January 14 - 20

January 21 - 24

January 25 - 28

January 29 - 31

February 1 - 4

February 5 - 10

February 11 - 21

February 22 - 24

February 25 - 28
March 1 - 9

March 10 - 17

March 18 - 23

March 24 - 31
April 1 - 8

April 9 - 14

April 15 - 18

April 19 - 24

April 25 - 30

May 1 - 5

May 6 - 10
 
June
July
August
September
October

November

December


2020 ARCHIVE

January
February March
April 1 - 15

April 16- 30

May 1 - 15

May 16- 31
 
June 1 - 15

June 16- 30
July 1 - 15

July 16- 31
Aug 1 - 15

Aug 16 - 31
September 1 - 15

September 16 - 30
October 1 - 15

October 16 - 23

Ocober 24 - 31
November 1 - 8

November 9 - 15

November 16 - 21

November 22 - 30
December 1 - 7

December 8 - 12

December 13 - 16

December 17 - 20

December 21 - 27

December 28 - 31

-0-
...
 News and facts for those sick and tired of the National Propaganda Radio version of reality.


- Unlike all the legacy media, our editorial offices are not in Langley, Virginia.


- You won't catch us fiddling while Western Civilization burns.


-
Close the windows so you don't hear the mockingbird outside, grab a beer, and see what the hell is going on as we witness the controlled demolition of our society.


- The truth usually comes from one source. It comes quietly, with no heralds. Untruths come from multiple sources, in unison, and incessantly.


- The loudest partisans belong to the smallest parties. The media exaggerate their size and influence.


THE ARCHIVE PAGE
.
No Thanks
If you let them redefine words, they will control language.
If you let them control language, they will control thoughts.
If you let them control thoughts, they will control you. They will own you.

© 2020 - 2021 - thenotimes.com - All Rights Reserved