Visit Counter

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Rep. Jordan Opening Statement at Cohen Hearing



It makes you wonder. Scumbag Cohen is going to jail yet these dogs walked. Lois Lerner, John Koskinen, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Peter Strozk, Comey, McCabe, Loretta Lynch. Not to mention a whole slew of others. 

The impropriety here is truly glaring!


After Jordan's opening statement they could have gone home. 


Video 490


He's dead right about Clinton loving Lanny Davis. When Bill unzipped his pants the only question was who would get there first...Monica or Lanny? 

And Cohen is a first rate scumbag. Going from... 
to stabbing him in the back!


And then there's this:






Share/Bookmark

North Korea nuclear summit ends abruptly with no deal




The headlines we never saw.


Recap:






Now contrast this with the Trump / Kim Jong-un Summit in Vietnam, the hype before the Summit, but Barry was the one who pulled it off. This is how the left stream media would have reported it.




 Obama's monumental achievement changes the course of history





Obama effectively ends the Korean War




It's Obama
Decisive Summit Brings World Closer To Peace 






Obama awarded second Nobel Peace Prize



(If they actually met)



Obama Draws Red Line In The Sand With Kim And Like Putin pisses in his face












Share/Bookmark

The new rock stars?




Rolling Stone must be getting desperate




3 out of 4 without one scintilla of common sense!









Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

The loss of clouds could add another 8 °C to global warming




The polar bears are missing, the Arctic ice is disappearing, and now we have a loss of clouds?



Climate Change Predictions vs What Actually Happened

This video goes back to 1983 (see how young Gore is) professing global warming and predicting the end is near. Remember it started out as global warming but when that catchphrase couldn't account for severe snow storms, because of a thing called weather, so they had to change the narrative to climate change to cover all the bases.

Video 489





Of course, the left stream media was only too happy to go along with it.




-----------------------------




Clouds cover about two-thirds of the planet at any moment, but as the Earth warms, they’re becoming scarcer, risking a feedback loop of runaway warming which could push surface temperatures up by roughly a further 8 °C, according to new research.

The findings: Supercomputer simulations suggest that greenhouse gases are causing the disappearance of clouds over our oceans, and that could drastically speed up global warming over the next century, a paper in Nature Geoscience suggests. Specifically, the tipping point is predicted to come once atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations reach about 1,200 parts per million. The figure is currently about 410 ppm but could reach 1,200 ppm within the next century.

Past disaster: This scenario would be similar to an event that occurred about 56 million years ago during the Eocene period, according to the authors. During the so-called Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a sudden release of carbon into the atmosphere was followed by a sudden temperature increase of more than 5 °C. It had catastrophic effects. It caused mass extinction in the seas and was hot enough for crocodiles to swim in the Arctic.

Time to worry? Yes and no. It’s undoubtedly a scary prospect. It would mean the end of human civilization.

But there are plenty of assumptions that would have to be borne out, and steps that would have to take place before we reach that point.

Climate scientist Tapio Schneider, who co-authored the paper, said it's important to note "there are substantial uncertainties about quantitative results. The largest uncertainty is in the CO2 level at which the clouds become unstable—we cannot pinpoint that with precision."

"The central point to me is that our study points to the possibility of previously undiscovered and strong feedbacks in the climate system," he added.

Your response to that possibility might depend on how optimistic you are about the likelihood of humanity tackling climate change before it inflicts further irreparable damage.







Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Last night I had a dream about a roundup of many deep state conspirators



On a tip from Ed Kilbane



If only it wasn’t a dream......

Video 488








Share/Bookmark

Green New Deal Cost Revealed







------------------------------------




Price tag of Green New Deal put at $93 trillion

by Josh Siegel





 The "Green New Deal" resolution introduced by progressive Democrats would cost up to $93 trillion over 10 years. 

The American Action Forum, led by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said in a report the proposal would cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. 

In comparison, total government spending over the next 10 years is projected to total less than $60 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 

The American Action Forum analysis says the Green New Deal's call to eliminate carbon emissions from the power and transportation sectors would cost between $8.3 trillion and $12.3 trillion. 

It estimates a federal job guarantee proposed in the resolution would cost $6.8 trillion to $44.6 trillion. Universal healthcare, another component of the Green New Deal resolution, would cost $36 trillion over 10 years, the report found. 

Republicans jumped on the report. 

“The American Action Forum’s analysis shows that the Green New Deal would bankrupt the nation,” said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 

Barrasso said government policy to combat climate change should emphasize promoting innovation through investments in new technologies like advanced nuclear power and carbon capture on fossil fuels plants. 

But supporters of the Green New Deal say those targeted investments are insufficient. Sponsors of the resolution also said the American Action Forum report is intentionally misleading. That’s because sponsors intended the Green New Deal to be a broad vision to combat climate change, with details to be filled in later through various pieces of legislation after debate through relevant congressional committees. 

“Any so-called 'analysis' of the #GreenNewDeal that includes artificially inflated numbers that rely on lazy assumptions, incl. about policies that aren’t even in the resolution is bogus,” tweeted Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who co-introduced the Green New Deal resolution. “Putting a price on a resolution of principles, not policies, is just Big Oil misinformation.” 

More Democratic mumble-jumble horse shit.









Share/Bookmark

I was watching “In Pursuit With John Walsh” last night





They did a story on a guy who committed a murder 14 years ago.





Wonder if he's a Muslim? 












Share/Bookmark

Monday, February 25, 2019

First photograph of the backdated, $3,500 check Smollett paid Nigerian brothers 'to beat him' emerges





On Monday, Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson appeared on Good Morning America to say he had more proof the actor lied 





They should tack on 5 more years for stupidity!


This is the check Jussie Smollett paid Abimbola 'Abel' Osundairo to allegedly beat him on January 29. He backdated it to January 23, according to police. Smollett labeled it '5-week nutrition/workout program' but the brothers say it was for the attack





Share/Bookmark

The world in which we live:



Article fresh off the press:

Is it cruel to have kids in the era of climate change?


Wonder what they call killing your kid right after birth... right and just!?! 

What are these people?

----------------------




Some argue that bringing children into a decaying world is immoral.

In one of his early works, the nineteenth-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche relayed an Ancient Greek legend about King Midas pursuing the satyr Silenus, a wise companion of the god Dionysus. When Midas finally captures Silenus, he asks him what “the best thing of all for men” is. “The very best thing for you is totally unreachable,” Silenus replies: “not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing.”

27-year-old Raphael Samuel from Mumbai offered an echo of this argument to the BBC this month. Samuel plans to sue his parents for bringing him into a world of suffering without his consent. “Why should I suffer? Why must I be stuck in traffic? Why must I work? Why must I face wars? Why must I feel pain or depression? Why should I do anything when I don’t want to? Many questions. One answer,” Samuel wrote on his Facebook page: “Someone had you for their ‘pleasure.’”

Once, such thoughts might have seemed far-fetched or even self-indulgent. Today, however, similar reasoning—known as “antinatalism—seems to be spreading as potential future parents contemplate bringing children into a world climate change is likely to devastate. “Why did you have me?” Samuel asked his parents as a child. If the bleak scenarios about the planet’s future come to fruition, will parents have a satisfying answer to such questions?

The basic antinatalist argument is simple, albeit easily misunderstood. As philosopher David Benatar argued in a 2006 antinatalist treatise, life is full of suffering and strife, the moments of pleasure and happiness few, transitory, and elusive, and ultimately it all ends in death. This is not the same as saying that life is not worth living, if you happen to be alive—for one thing, living and then facing death can involve its own physical and emotional pain. The argument is rather that it would have been better never to have been born in the first place. Some lives can indeed be rather satisfactory, even rewarding. But as a potential future parent, you are taking a risk on your child’s behalf, because, Benatar kindly reminds us, “there is a wide range of appalling fates that can befall any child that is brought into existence: starvation, rape, abuse, assault, serious mental illness, infectious disease, malignancy, paralysis.”

Which brings us to a risk unique to the twenty-first century: climate change. According to the 2018 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, humanity has only 12 years left to prevent global warming from reaching levels that would result in the poverty of millions and the greatest displacement of people in the history of humanity as they flee extreme drought and floods. Such events also tend to involve violent conflict. The political community’s tepid response to climate change so far, with world leaders like Donald Trump and Jair Bolsanarorefusing to acknowledge global warming as real, let alone as urgent, makes it hard to be optimistic. Given the very real possibility that life will be much worse for the next generation as a result of the global instability, some, recent trend pieces report, are thinking twice about becoming parents. 

One might argue that, like Benatar’s catalog of human suffering, this response is overly pessimistic. Hardship is nothing new. Life can be meaningful despite it, and sometimes even because of it. Strife gives you something to work towards, purpose; it’s what gives life meaning, not what makes it meaningless.

But if climate change causes wars to break out, would one still choose to birth children into a high likelihood of violent death? And if the looming 12-year deadline is missed, and further temperature increases become statistically inevitable, what purpose could life have in the face of an unavoidable, collective downfall? At least people living today still have the agency to change things. But bringing children into a decaying world, without even the opportunity to do something about it, seems a cruel fate to inflict on someone, especially your own child.

The great question is whether that fate is inevitable. During the Cold War, there was an existential fear about a possible nuclear war between America and the USSR, which would have brought about mass death and suffering. Instead, political history and fortune took a turn that made nuclear annihilation less likely—even though the risk of a nuclear war may since have risen. Going further back, around the turn of the nineteenth century the English economist Thomas Malthus was warning that the pending overpopulation of the planet would lead to inevitable food shortages. That didn’t happen either. Technological advances have allowed the planet to feed a population many times its nineteenth-century tally of one billion. So, even if we can’t see it from our current vantage point, there is hope that politics, technology, or a combination of the two might retrospectively render our current anxieties exaggerated. But, of course, there is no guarantee of that—hope comes with its own risks.

Having children, some could argue, is a way of making that hope more realistic. For while some environmentalists have suggested lowering birth rates to reduce greenhouse emissions for those who remain, there is also another side to the issue: Young people today care deeply about the environment and their activism is needed as political pressure. Young people will also be the future scientists and engineers that we need in order to come up with technological solutions to global warming that are still unavailable. Both these “greater good” arguments for and against procreation, unfortunately, amount to using future children as a means to an end, thinking about how they can contribute to our overall welfare, rather than thinking of their own individual well-being.
Most people don’t have children after doing a risk assessment of the possible problems that could threaten their children’s well-being in the future.

What unsettles with all of these justifications for having children in the face of potential adversity is that they portray this decision as the result of a calculation. Most people don’t have children after doing a risk assessment of the possible problems that could threaten their children’s well-being in the future. Philosophers like Benatar, of course, think that’s a mistake, unreflectively surrendering to our animal instinct to procreate—but arguably if our decision to bring a new person to life resulted from spreadsheet analysis, that would come with its own dystopian overtones, and somewhat compromise the inherently audacious nature of the act.

Nietzsche, ultimately, did not give in to Silenus’s pessimistic message that it would have been better never to have existed. Instead, he emphasized the life-affirming side of Dionysus’s outlook, an affirmation in full knowledge of life’s propensity for tragedy. This affirmation embraces life in its totality, its high points as well as its low points, without entering into a petty calculus of which side amasses a greater score. For Nietzsche, this was not a rational argument or a religious belief, but more of an attitude towards things. Nietzsche called it “the will to live,” or “a triumphant Yes”: the “affirmation of life even in its strangest and sternest of problems.” While future parents may not want to respond to the question, “why did you have me?” by handing a child the complete works of Nietzsche, they may yet find this attitude inspiring in the era of climate change.




Share/Bookmark

Sunday, February 24, 2019

Lara Logan former correspondent for CBS news




Lara Logan worked at CBS for 16 years. Here she discusses the media bias from the left and the negative media coverage on President Trump. 





Video 487


Bet that Navy Seal had a hard time looking at her eyes.






Share/Bookmark

Did they run out of Confederates?




Leftists want to rename John Wayne Airport because he was a racist...or something



An op-ed in the Los Angeles Times is calling for John Wayne's name to be removed from the airport in Orange County because of The Duke's racist, homophobic, and anti-Indian beliefs.


Most people familiar with the life story of John Wayne are aware that the late movie star was a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger — after all, he was still making a movie glorifying America's conduct of the Vietnam War ("The Green Berets," 1968) well after the country had begun to get sick of the conflict.


But the resurrection of a 1971 interview Wayne gave to Playboy magazine has underscored the sheer crudeness of the actor's feelings about gay people, black people, Native Americans, young people and liberals.


A writer who spends 3,000 words trashing conservatives is concerned how Wayne viewed liberals? Sheesh.


This doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible or immoral to enjoy Westerns and war movies starring John Wayne; that's a personal choice. But it certainly undermines any justification for his name and image to adorn a civic facility.


Is it really "immoral" to enjoy any movie? Maybe watching Triumph of the Will is questionable, but as a piece of propaganda, it is unparalleled. It is not moral or immoral to enjoy — or hate — watching any movie. The writer is instructing us the "proper" way to think — as he does throughout his piece.

Certainly, Wayne's beliefs were based on rancid stereotypes and urban myths that most people had abandoned by the time the interview in Playboy appeared in 1971. 

A few examples:

PLAYBOY: What kind of films do you consider perverted?

WAYNE: Oh, Easy Rider, Midnight Cowboy — that kind of thing. Wouldn't you say that the wonderful love of those two men in Midnight Cowboy, a story about two fags, qualifies?


Wayne's views on African-Americans were particularly obnoxious:


WAYNE: With a lot of blacks, there's quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so. But we can't all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.



The context in which the term "white supremacy" is used in 1971 differs from today. But it's still an odious way to think.

Wayne's views on Native Americans need to be included in their entirety:

PLAYBOY: How do you feel about the government grant for a university and cultural center that these Indians [then encamped on Alcatraz Island] have demanded as "reparations"?

WAYNE: What happened between their forefathers and our forefathers is so far back — right, wrong or indifferent — that I don't see why we owe them anything. I don't know why the government should give them something that it wouldn't give me.

PLAYBOY: Do you think they've had the same advantages and opportunities that you've had?

WAYNE: I'm not gonna give you one of those I-was-a-poor-boy-and-I-pulled-myself-up-by-my-bootstraps stories, but I've gone without a meal or two in my life, and I still don't expect the government to turn over any of its territory to me. Hard times aren't something I can blame my fellow citizens for. Years ago, I didn't have all the opportunities, either. But you can't whine and bellyache 'cause somebody else got a good break and you didn't, like these Indians are. We'll all be on a reservation soon if the socialists keep subsidizing groups like them with our tax money.

To say that Wayne's beliefs were a product of the times in which he lived would not be accurate. His views on blacks were antebellum. Considering how much money he made off Native Americans, he had surprisingly little empathy for them. And even in 1971, people knew enough not to refer to gay people as "fags."

So that's it? We are to judge John Wayne based on his view of race and sexual orientation? Should we judge Martin Luther King solely on his utter failure to be faithful to his wife? The left wouldn't like that at all. Or perhaps we should judge leftist icons like Ted Kennedy on treatment of women, including leaving a young girl to die in a submerged car?

John Wayne believed in stereotypes. He was wrong to do so. But how can you judge anyone without looking at the totality of his life? It's easy for the left to take titans like Washington and Jefferson and trash them because they were slave-owners. The fact that they created the freest, most prosperous nation on Earth is erased from history. It doesn't mean their slave-owning is excused. It means that sin is placed on the scales of history and weighed against all other accomplishments — and failures — of their lives. To do any less does a massive disservice to history and the memory of notable historical figures.

For most of his professional life, John Wayne became the face of America — strong, independent, incorruptible, and willing to die to do what was right. He treated women with respect, defending their honor and their children. And he was willing to face evil, though he be outnumbered and outgunned, usually triumphing in the end. His personae defined American for tens of millions of people around the world for decades.

Oh, yes...and he loved America. 

That's what seems to be the bug up the arse of this writer. John Wayne was an unabashed patriot. His love of country was uncomplicated. That's why, toward the end of his life, he was vilified and hated by leftists around the world — not for who he was, but for whom he played on screen. They knew that the masses loved The Duke, and to advance their political agenda, they needed to tear him down, discredit him, and discredit what he stood for.

That they succeeded at all is a shame. America could do a lot worse than have icons like John Wayne represent us to the rest of the world.





Share/Bookmark

From one sodomite to another...













 







Share/Bookmark

This could turn out to be quite interesting


AOC insists she DOES live in the Bronx after accusations that neighbors have never met her and mail piles up at her apartment for months


She may be America’s most famous freshman congresswoman, but in New York, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a virtual ghost.

She has no district office and no local phone number, unlike the state’s three other freshman members.

And it’s unclear whether the 29-year-old lawmaker, who represents the Bronx and Queens, actually still lives in the Parkchester neighborhood that has been so closely tied to her rise — even though she won her upset victory over fellow Democrat Rep. Joe Crowley with accusations that his home in Virginia made him too Washington-focused to serve his district.

Ocasio-Cortez has used her deceased father’s Bronx condo on her voter registration since 2012, and even posed in the one-bedroom Bronx flat for celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz in a Vogue magazine profile after her stunning November election. But The Post could find little indication she continues to live there.

The Post e-mailed the Ocasio-Cortez’ spokesman, Corbin Trent, four times with specific questions — they were all ignored. On Saturday, The Post reached Corbin by phone.

“We will not be commenting,” he said. Among the queries he refused to answer: Where does the congresswoman live?

On Saturday night, a staffer promised a Post reporter that Ocasio-Cortez would talk to him after a speaking event in Corona.

During the event, two staffers were seen reading an early edition of this story on their phones.

“Come downstairs, I have to take a picture quick,” the congresswoman then told the reporter after the event, instructing him to wait for her. Twenty minutes later, she ducked out a back door, jumped into a chauffeured SUV, and zoomed off. 



The Post was unable to confirm that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez still lives in the Parkchester building listed on her voter registration.



Ocasio-Cortez was in New York City last weekend and this weekend, with appearances in Queens on both Saturdays — yet she was not seen coming or going from her Parkchester pad either day.

Her apartment’s next-door neighbor said she had never seen Ocasio-Cortez. Another neighbor, who has lived down the hall from the congresswoman’s apartment for the last 40 years, said he’d never seen her or her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, who has claimed the address as his own since last spring.

“I would have remembered,” said the neighbor when shown a photograph of Ocasio-Cortez.

Workers at Jerry’s Pizzeria, less than a block from her building, and at the local grocery store said she had never patronized their businesses — and a server at a nearby taqueria said the congresswoman had only come in to be filmed by news crews.

A postal worker who delivers mail to the building said that in the last 10 years he has only seen Ocasio-Cortez intermittently and that several months’ worth of mail regularly accumulates in the mailbox before anyone bothers to collect it. The worker said that Ocasio-Cortez and Roberts were the only ones getting mail at the address.

“Just because their names are on the box doesn’t mean they live there,” he said.

And in 2017, when Ocasio-Cortez first filed paperwork to become a congressional candidate, she didn’t even know what district she lived in, 


mistakenly declaring plans to run for neighboring District 15 before correcting the error days later.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Ocasio-Cortez has rented a pad in a luxe building in the chic Navy Yard neighborhood, where studios start at $1,840 a month, according to the Washington Examiner.

Her new digs feature gold-plated amenities like a rooftop infinity pool, a cycling studio with a dozen pricey Pelotons, men’s and women’s saunas, and a golf simulation lounge — but no affordable units for low-income residents, in spite of a local law that requires them, the news site reported.

In the eight months since Ocasio-Cortez’s dramatic defeat of the long-serving Crowley in June’s Democratic primary — a victory that all but guaranteed a general election win in the heavily Democratic District 14 — the congresswoman has failed to open a local office.

Ocasio-Cortez has made four trips to the city since she was inducted to Congress on Jan. 3, according to a Post review of published reports and social media. Those excursions featured five public events in her district — and three high-profile Manhattan appearances, including a Jan. 21 guest slot on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”

A district office “makes government immediately responsible and accountable to the citizens,” said Jadan Horyn of Reclaim New York, a government watchdog group.

“Constituents need to know their representatives are working for them, and not for national prominence.

The space slated for Ocasio-Cortez’s constituent office is in a new building in Jackson Heights.

Suites in the building at 74-09 37th Avenue rent for about $40 per square foot. Ocasio-Cortez’s office, on the third floor, is just under 5,000 square feet, which would bring the annual undiscounted rental price to $200,000 or nearly $17,000 a month.

In January, Ocasio-Cortez sought to blame the delay on a stubborn landlord at a different building where her predecessor Crowley maintained one of his two district offices.

“Although we attempted to take over our predecessor’s lease, the landlord wanted to almost double rent” from $7,800 to $15,000 per month, she tweeted Jan. 22 — without specifying which of Crowley’s spaces she had hoped to inherit.

“That spike would have meant less caseworkers for our community,” she posted. “Instead, we’re making a new space with a family business!”

But Ocasio-Cortez neglected to mention that her rent would end up likely topping the cost of Crowley’s former digs.

When The Post visited last week, the congresswoman’s office was still under construction, with workers building interior walls and installing drywall. A carpenter there said the work would probably take several more weeks to complete. A staffer said at a community board meeting that it would open March 4.

It’s unknown if taxpayers or the landlord is paying for the extensive renovations.

A spokesman for Cow Bay Contracting, the Nassau County construction company working on the office space, refused comment. Ocasio-Cortez’s office refused to answer the question.

In the absence of a district office, and with no way to contact the rookie congresswoman, voters have resorted to desperate measures.

“Constituents come here and leave notes on the door,” said the postal worker at her Parkchester apartment building last weekend. “But it’s a waste of time.”









Share/Bookmark