10 signs you’ve joined the anti-Goldstein hysteria

How to tell when somebody is a Republican-Democrat fanatical anti-Trump:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5248/10-indicators-youve-joined-trump-cult-ben-shapiro#pq=8lT20u

#1. They say he (and Rush Limbaugh too!) “threatened riots”. Nobody “threatened riots”. The people who were rioting at Trump’s rallies were ANTI-Trumps.

[Editorial note insert: Let me amend this one by saying that the only people that were threatening to riot were professional Black Lives Matter provocateurs, cheered on by Democrat, Republican, Media, and Government establishment rulers and their mind-parrots).

#2 Complaining that he does not obey a Republican Oligarch plant. –Trump pushed back professional political operative Manafort’s advice because (1) like he said, he is the front-runner by NOT acting “presidential”, a catch-word for “political conformist-zombi” (my new words for PC).

#3. Complaining about authoritarianism. –Whereas Cruz voted for TPP, refuses to criticize the Goldman Sachs and Wall Street bailouts, wants even MORE war authority (unconstitutional kill lists aren’t enough?), and sends agents provocateurs to lie and cheat and suppress votes?

He is the authoritarian while critics like Ben Shapiro apparently want to go back to smoke filled rooms where NONE of us has any say in who they put to rule over us.

#4. No tolerance for questions? Really? –Trump has had FIVE TIMES more coverage than his runner-up because he actually goes to interviews when he’s invited. I guess after all this question-answering, a few people criticize the questioners and their replies are suppressing free speech. What’s this? Republican oligarch subjects are pulling the micro-aggression card from California?

#5. “Unreasonable fear about the outside world”??? In what universe? “Fear”? How is that supposed to work? This is the most ridiculous thing.

The guy is threatening to bring the troops home 70 years after the war is over and bring the money home, he’s promising to re-open the 9/11 investigations, investigate Hillary, and so on. Fear? Maybe this writer would have preferred a “bold” Donald to go to Chicago and let the rioters cry “Riot on!”.

Fear? He has investments everywhere in the world!

It looks like the oligarchs are the ones who are fearing HIM.

#6. Narcissistic, yes, it takes some measure of it to really go for the presidency. The only evident exception to that would be Ron Paul.

#7. No capacity to change? – They blame the guy for changing parties and changing his mind, then they blame him for not changing?

But then every time “we” vote for a Republican oligarch candidate, we get them changing from their promises before to doing exactly the opposite. Obama brought enough change. We’re sick of that kind of change. Try a different unknown, maybe.

#8. “Grievances” among former “members” of the Trump campaign. They say that Roger stone left the campaign over the spat with Megyn Kelly, but he has said he left because he thought he could do more good elsewhere.

The pro-Trump PAC guys cry “authoritarian” because Trump told them to please shut it down, and failing that, stop using his name.

#9. Record of abuses? –Naturally just like with Romney, Bush, anybody who’s done very much has people who are jealous, envious, spiteful, and maybe some who have a point. Shapiro’s list is herein highlighted as to this article. He claims abuse of women but the only public complaint is the one from the girl Shapiro quit Breitbart over who kept trying to break the Secret Service buffer, tried to touch Trump, had something in her hand, and was trying to block the coterie.

#10. Followers feel they can’t be “good enough”. Well well, I guess that’s why so many more are voting for him than anybody else.

Advertisement

Global cooling! Wait! Global Warming! Hunh? Cimate change! Money R Us!

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year:

Carpe Diem, Environmental and Energy Economics

Font SizeAA
In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 46th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 16 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

Read on, the whole article:
http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

My answer on computerworld

Some people want more laws making it mandatory to report all, 100%, of data breaches:

–> http://www.computerworld.com/article/3051145/security/don-t-let-embarrassment-about-a-data-breach-cost-you-even-more.html

Having such laws has other consequences that also contradict the intent, even if the intent is honest.

Just as with all regulatory control legislation, the public may trust those laws too much, and they let their guard down too much. L

The public may trust such laws to keep their bank accounts or identifiers safe, even when they don’t, and therefore don’t prepare as they should or take the precautions they should. Imagine there were no laws at all requiring protection of personal financial identifiers.

In fact the public DOES trust such laws too much, just as they trust regulators to keep us safe from bad guys, from pollution, from bad water, from bad food, and from scams. In some of these cases, private parties (persons, companies) are prohibited by law from protecting themselves.

Timely warnings in new Charlie Daniels song

A bit late, though.
http://www.infowars.com/charlie-daniels-releases-new-song-exposing-shadow-government/

A good number of us have warned the nation, the States, of its impending fall in judgment by God for its many sins, the worst of which was that the people turned its back on God as a people in culture.

The church led the charge in stampeding into irrelevancy, after many decades of standing in the breech, holding the finger in the dike, standing guard and listening to God for guidance. I am talking about the Christians in the land, not the political rulers, who kept trying and kept trying.

One musical band from the 1960s era sang Sympathy for the Devil, with the lyrics reflecting the title. Later they sang Time is On My Side, by which in truth they meant that they are persistent and that they could hide better because they don’t mind lying and deceiving and biding their time till they get what they want.

What they want it their own Big Brother (remember Rare Earth, “You better get the people on your side”?). They want their Supreme Lord, the guy we Christians call the Antichrist, aka the Beast, and some Jews might recognize as “the prince of the people that shall come” as in Daniel 9:27.

Media shows the truth of Ben Carson’s criticism, again

(I’m responding here to a column at the politico web site because their comments require a Facebook login. I quit Facebook a long time agone, going through the extra steps to delete my presence there altogether, not just suspend my account.)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/ben-carson-electoral-college-222016

And there goes politico, in the reporting on the interview, showing another example of what Ben Carson says about the media, saying he “likened the delegate selection process to the Jim Crow laws of the South”, and then saying he didn’t mean to say that.

Summing up the effect of that sentence, they basically said he corrected himself, even as they included enough of the actual quote to show it was not a correction and NO, he did NOT “liken” the two things, he was just using examples of archaic rules that are NOT fair and do not accomplish what the party bosses tell us. In other words, also, the “rules” rob the voting franchise from the purported voter.

These guys must have gone to some off-the-books subtlety school to learn how to twist the reporting.

(P.S. It seems to me there is a startup-ready market waiting for alternative social media without the thought-policing they do. Facebook chief Zuckerburg agreed with Merkel to make new rules for Germany to block opposition to subsidizing a mass immigration wave of millions, for example, while the company issues a “pants-on-fire” statement saying they’re neutral on the presidential candidacy)

Good one!

https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/perfect/

Farah, WND: Her’s why Cruz’s delegate flip strategy is more FRAUD than fair

Joseph Farah, who has built up World Net Daily into quite an Internet presence, has apparently been cheering for Cruz. Now at the link, he defends himself in light of thousands of comments in the feedback:
http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/wnd-readers-let-loose-on-cruz-morality-question/

He says what Cruz is doing is okay because he’s simply working within the rules in his tactic of trying to make sure that national delegates vote for him on the second ballot.

BUT what he’s leaving out, whether from unwitting ignorance, willfull ignorance, or deceit, is…

The MAIN reason that the Cruz strategy of supposedly “flipping” votes is that it is a FRAUD, because CRUZ himself and his campaign staff are NOT doing what Farah says.

They’re doing that to, but we can see that the strategy in the campaign does not see the limits to their actions that way.

There is FRAUD because they are encouraging CRUZ supporters to put on sheep clothing and to be commit FRAUD, pretending FALSELY to be Trump supporters to the national convention.

The RNC and the Cruz campaign and the rest of the never-Trump operatives are all in for this attempt to again VIOLATE THEIR OWN RULES! BY FRAUD.

In Colorado, they “disappeared” a great many Trump delegates from the list. Anticipating another wave of Ron Paul type insurgency, they decided a year ago to avoid insurgent input so they could arrange this type of FRAUD if they had to, so they could make sure the country-club Establishment exclusive billionaire club could select the right candidate.

Saddam Hussein had rules too. Vote for Saddam Hussein, that was his rule. Your vote counts if it’s what the oligarch Rockefeller-wing of the party wants.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, AND SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

Why doesn’t Sanders expose Hillary’s threats against Bill Clinton victims?

Trump has shown that he will not shy away from such topics. He shows as much ignorance as Sanders on economic topics, but at least acknowledges that America is broke, broke broke.

The other Republican candidates show that they will walk on hot glass and coals to avoid it. Why?

She only gets called on it when she opens up for questions, and somebody slips through their political filter net.

Trump talks about all the crimes of the one percenters and doesn’t shy away from it.

Trump, Cruz, Rules, Ron Paul, Colorado, and Why

And the reason none of the usual blabbermouth media or the candidates are talking about Ron Paul is that he is the reason for the rules and Ron Paul is the reason Colorado plutocrat operatives made sure they could game the system with party loyalists. You know RINO’s!

The Republican Party bosses lost a bunch of states in delegates to the Ron Paul supporters in 2012 who played BY THE RULES they had in place that obligated the party to do one round of balloting and allow Ron Paul’s name to be placed in play.

PANIC! So what do the plutocrats do when faced with people that played by the rules and pull off a surprise? Let them work themselves out and CHANGE THE RULES!

In a panic that some upstart overturn their applecart and their pig slop, oink oink, they changed the rules to make it harder for a Patrick Buchanan, Ron Paul, or even Rand Paul, or Donald Trump to make it.

This confirms what I’ve been pretty sure about for a long time now: That the primaries were only to allow an ILLUSION of influence to voters because their “Republican base” (on the Dem side too) get suspicious with the bosses forever running RINOs like Romneycare Mitt, John “what POWs left behind?” McCain, or Paul “Me or Pelosi” Ryan.. George W…

The reason Cruz knows the rules everywhere and had the delegates lined up is because (1) he is a mini-Bush, (2) his wife is a mini-Bush, (3) his first million-dollar push in politics came from the GRAND THEFT ROBBERS of Goldman Sachs (who stole that money from you and me), (4) his marriage was made in Bush-RINO heaven, (5) he is still financed by the same culprits who get crony money from D. C. (stolen from us) for taking care of the “illegal entrants” from Mexico and Central America that flooded over the borders (catch and release) two years ago and they’re still coming, (6) even with all that insider horse-trading, he SAYS he is an outsider.

The guy is counting on loyal dupes, with cavalier demeanor, so much that he thinks he got away with lying in Iowa about Ben Carson, and later somebody set Rubio back on his heels with a bad quote about the Bible.

Now, Mr. Neil “Silverado” Bush is treasurer for the Cruz campaign, and a bunch of Bushies are working in his campaign.

Nobody knows really what Trump will do, and he’s obviously not been politically suave (what a refresher) but he speaks off the cuff, and it comes off as honest. Is it? It’s more honest than the rest of them, that’s obvious to the intellectually honest viewer.

He has made some economically atrocious statements, but he has also said some things nobody else dares. Nobody knows what he’ll do, mostly, but some of it is consistent:

Iraq was a mistake.

The U. S. has too many troops “defending” nations that can very well defend themselves, and Americans are paying for it. It’s not fair to have thousands of troops in Europe, Japan, all over the place. Bring the troops home, bring that money home.

The U. S. is overwhelmed with illegal immigrants, and we need to put a stopper on it for awhile and look at it again. (Cruz was for it before he was against it, blah blah)

Cruz will make sand glow in the dark. Wait. Our ruling plutocrats have been bombing and bombing and invading and nation-building and all that for 15 years now, and how’s that working out for you? ISIS is pumped up with American armies and US-supplied fleets of Toyota trucks and got fat smuggling oil through Turkey protected by Obama and Clinton who were afraid of damaging the desert ecosystem. Gimme a break.

Bush started it and Obama-Clinton expanded it, and we get blowback, and more terror alerts. So the FBI can keep on doing the plots that they create, design, implement, supply and organize, so they can stop another plot! Republicrats, Demicans, married at the hip.

Trump says bring back the troops.

(My beef is with the idea of killing the families. This has multiplied bad guys’ ranks)

The wall, bringing home the troops, quit the useless NATO (presumably the U. N. too especially since – is the US still paying 90 percent of the United Nations budget?)

Tariffs are also a bad idea economically.

But anti-Trump mania does not become a thinking man. The straw that makes the difference is the war issue. He seems to be the one most likely to ratchet back all the war killing, the war grinder, and bring home that military money. We have borders to protect.

Is Google tilting the political playing field?

There is a Google policy that directly affects views that conflicts with the views of “somebody” at Google, and I can think of two examples immediately that come to mind. Because of Google’s de facto near-monopoly dominance in Internet search, the ads that come up on the side very much affect the financial side of companies and people that use those ads and count on them for significant parts of their revenue, especially information web sites.

One of these was effectively de-listed for having a libertarian point of view in an expert’s blog about automobiles. Another was what you might call an “anti-Islamist” web site.

I myself once clicked on a Yahoo search result that came up in the first page results and I got this page-sized warning: “Yahoo does not authorize this web page”, and “proceed at your own risk”, something like that, although it let me click through. This target site had convincing information that could have been extremely damaging to the Obama campaign of 2008.

So Google most definitely, whether through deliberate policy decisions in the company, or through selective negligence, does tilt the playing field.

This is one reason for the dominance of the Drudge Report for getting a variety of generally interesting stories with a lot less of the dominant elite-classses’ socially enforced cultural memes that are much more controversial than most “Legacy Media” implies.

It’s not just Google and Yahoo and search portals that use these two engines. Like Facebook agreeing to a German censorship policy. Indirectly, Paypal making decisions based on political bias to withdraw business from one American government jurisdiction (North Carolina), favoring an opinion that is atrocious to most American parents, while trying to increase business in places where worse atrocities are enforced.