[BabylonBee] U.S.‐Should you donate to the politician you think will best help the country? Or should you instead put all that money in a big pile and set it on fire? That has been the eternal question, and a new study aims to answer it.
"The better use of your money is setting it on fire, hands down," said Doctor Howard Ingram, an expert in the fields of both politics and arson. "Every time we set money on fire, we get the benefits of producing light and heat. We never see any such solid benefits from donating to a politician. In fact, it often has a detrimental effect."
Ingram reported that donating to politicians often simply encourages their sociopathic behavior and leads them to forcefully take more of your money through taxes, which will then be wasted on government programs where, again, just burning the money would have produced more benefit.
There are some negatives to burning money, though, such as smoke inhalation. "You might want to consider getting rid of the money in other ways," said Ingram, "such as buying a bag of chips. But I really like burning things."
Some politicians have disputed the findings of the study, but you can’t believe a word out of their lying mouths.
[NoTricksZone] Today I found an interview with an "environmental expert" by the German alarmist site Klimareporter here. It conveys to us the real aims of the radical climate movement. In a nutshell: To change, limit and dominantly control human behavior.
In the Kilmareporter interview, Prof. Rainer Griesshammer says that changing light bulbs, riding your bicycle and eating organic aren’t going to cut it when it comes to rescuing the climate.
In the interview, Klimareporter brings up Mr. Griesshammer’s recent book in which he calls for "changing politics and life" in order to combat climate change.
Politics, Griesshammer says, will "not be enough on its own" and that "changes in several areas of society ‐ in the value system, consumer behavior, the legal framework and the market, as well as in infrastructure and technology development" are required.
Citizens still in self-deception
In the interview Grießhammer says that citizens are in a state of "self deception" because "most people already think they are environmentalists because they separate the garbage, screw in a few energy-saving lamps or LEDs and occasionally shop at the organic food store". But this is woefully insufficient. Most people fail when it comes to protecting the climate in terms of "mobility, electricity consumption, nutrition," says Griesshammer.
Radical behavior change
What is needed, he says, is radical change in "behavior and shopping". According to Griesshammer: "In the mainstream, there will only be significant changes if laws, CO2 pricing, product development, infrastructures and behavior all move in the same direction."
According to Griesshammer, offsets are not going to work because people will continue to emit CO2. He says: "CO2 savings can only be achieved through measures in the home country ‐ such as phasing out coal, renovating buildings, speed limits."
Germany moving far too slowly
Griesshammer thinks the CO2 reduction target set by the federal government is "far too weak" and sees little hope that Germany will come anywhere near the stated targets because the just-decided coal phase-out "is falling further behind" and at the same time, onshore wind energy is being "stifled by the German government."
Moreover, petrol and diesel becoming around 7.5 cents per litre more expensive next year means "motorists are unlikely to react to this".
Policymakers must react "much faster"..."much more sharply"
Griesshammer is also in favor of stricter speed limits on the country’s roads and streets, saying the measure would not only save on emissions, but also lives.
When it comes to global warming, Griesshammer says policymaking has waited far too long: "Now we have to react much faster and much more sharply. There is a threat of incalculable tipping points with irreversible acceleration of the climate catastrophe..."
[WND] By the end of February, the race for the Democratic nomination may have come down to a choice of one of three white men.
Two are well into their 70s, and either would be the oldest president ever inaugurated. The third is a 38-year-old gay in a same-sex marriage who would be our youngest president ever.
How is it possible, if not probable, that Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg will be the last three Democrats standing?
Consider what the Iowa caucuses produced ‐ after the Democrats figured out how to count votes.
Sanders won the popular vote on both the first and second ballots. As of Thursday, with 547 state delegates, he was only three shy of Buttigieg's total. And the caucus yet to report is in Sanders country.
#3
I love it: an old Socialist scarecrow who for the first 70 or so years of his life was not a Democrat vs an old Plutocratic greedhead who for the first 70 years of his life was a Republican.
Fighting to lead the party of Jefferson and Jackson.
[The Federalist] Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg doubled down on his support for late-term, partial-birth abortions during an episode of ABC’s "The View" Thursday in a spar with conservative host Meghan McCain.
After McCain asked the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, to clarify his seemingly radical abortion views, that the Bible says "life begins with breath, so even that is something we can interpret differently," Buttigieg replied:
Well, I’m just pointing to the fact that different people will interpret their own moral lights, and for that matter, interpret Scripture differently. But we live in a country where it is extremely important that no one person have to be subjected to some other person’s interpretation of their own religion. I know we’re not going to agree ‐
McCain cut in, honing in on the partial-birth abortion question, saying, "Partial-birth abortion is something that was coming up, like I said, [Virginia] Gov. [Ralph] Northam ‐ it was a huge controversy when he was running for governor ‐ and I think people, even Democrats, and there are a lot of pro-life Democrats in the country, want to know exactly where your line is, because you’ll be the president if you win."
Buttigieg deflected, making the question solely about women’s rights and feminist talking points. "Right, but my point is that it shouldn’t be up to a government official to draw the line," he said. "It should be up to the woman who is confronted with the choice." The room erupted in applause.
"So if a woman wanted to ‐ I don’t know ‐ invoke infanticide after a baby was born, you’d be comfortable with that?" McCain asked.
"Does anybody serious think that’s what these cases are about?" Buttigieg deflected again, saying:
#3
Adam was formed from the dust of the ground, not from womb. The breath that entered Adam was from the creator, not when Adam took his first breath. Each person is known to the creator before that person is even conceived, therefore, a human being is life before conception, during formation in the womb, after birth and after even after death.
#4
I'm not sure that Satanism qualifies as a religion.
Posted by: Matt ||
02/07/2020 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Never quote the Bible to Murder Gods Creation"
Apparently that's not obvious to DemoncRats, #2 newc.
Posted by: Barbara ||
02/07/2020 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
it shouldn’t be up to a government official to draw the line," he said.
Did he just disown Roe vs. Wade? That was decided by government officials, right?
Posted by: Tom ||
02/07/2020 15:51 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Given his proclivities, Buttgag will most likely never have a biological child, so he has no problem taking a "blood for Baal" approach to these questions.
[Washington Examiner] The Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report on Thursday, criticizing the Obama administration for being unprepared to combat Russia’s election interference in 2016 and for fumbling the response.
The committee’s 54-page heavily redacted report, the third installment in the committee’s investigation into the Kremlin’s foreign influence campaign in 2016, "found the U.S. government was not well-postured to counter Russian election interference activity with a full range of readily-available policy options."
The report said that, while high-level warnings were delivered to Russian officials, "those warnings may or may not have tempered Moscow’s activity" and "Russia continued disseminating stolen emails, conducting social media-based influence operations, and working to access state voting infrastructure through Election Day 2016."
Republican Chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina said, "After discovering the existence, if not the full scope, of Russia’s election interference efforts in late-2016, the Obama administration struggled to determine the appropriate response. Frozen by ’paralysis of analysis,’ hamstrung by constraints both real and perceived, Obama officials debated courses of action without truly taking one."
Added Democratic Vice Chairman Mark Warner of Virginia: "There were many flaws with the U.S. response to the 2016 attack, but it’s worth noting that many of those were due to problems with our own system ‐ problems that can and should be corrected." "Systems problems and errors"...Non unlike the DOJ inspector general finding 17 'significant errors or omissions' in Carter Page FISA applicationsOk, I get it now.
The report found that the Obama administration "was constrained in its response by a number of external and internal concerns," including that "public warnings would themselves undermine confidence in the election."
The Obama administration treated cyber and geopolitical aspects of the Russian active measures campaign as separate issues, the committee said. "This bifurcated approach may have prevented the Administration from understanding the full extent of the threat Russia posed, limiting its ability to respond."
#1
Frozen by ’paralysis of analysis,’ hamstrung by constraints both real and perceived, Obama officials debated courses of action without truly taking one."
"Debated courses of action" ....whilst skillfully integrating the existing Russian threat into Christopher Steele's 'Trump-Russian hoax' scenario.
#2
the problem with Obama admin acting to stop Russian interference was that it interfered with their 'there are no problems with illegal voting' narrative
Posted by: lord garth ||
02/07/2020 0:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Let me see if I got it right.
Several hundred facebook posts originating in Russia - massive election interference.
Several million illegals and dead people voting - business as usual.
And our own home-grown biznessman/oligarch is spending -- get this -- 500 BILLION DOLLARS on ads! And we're not even talking about the general election! This is just for the primaries.
And these sh!theads are telling us that Russia's little bucket of ad spend, in the ocean of money that is FB ad spend-- these maroons are telling us that this sum which is ONE ONE-THOUSANDTH of what ONE US CANDIDATE is going to spend on THE PRIMARIES ALONE -- that this trivial effort somehow swung the election?
#9
Let me see if I got it right.
Several hundred facebook posts originating in Russia - massive election interference.
Several million illegals and dead people voting - business as usual.
Yes, g(r)omgoru, I understand your confusion. But with Democrats, it is indeed business as usual.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/07/2020 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
^Boy, am I glad to live in a country where you have to show an I.D. before you can vote - with a paper ballot.
[NYP] Has anyone checked to see if Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez is still breathing?
Let’s face it: Post-Iowa, his party is in free fall. It’s not clear any of their presidential candidates have mapped out a realistic way to the nomination, let alone to beating President Trump in the general election.
On top of that, a 5’7” multibillionaire businessman named Michael Bloomberg is sucking up a shocking level of support despite having entered the race in the 11th hour.
As if that dumpster fire needed kerosene, the Iowa caucuses were a tragic embarrassment of a mess, leaving each of the campaigns and the nation at large confounded at the lack of organization and competence by the party.
Late on Wednesday, we still didn’t know who won the most delegates coming out of Iowa.
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of Whoville, claimed a premature victory but apparently did do very well, despite polling nationally at around 6 percent.
But leaders in the party have a lot of reasons to be nervous about the media momentum Buttigieg is riding following the caucuses: His support among black Democratic voters remains firm at less than 2 percent, a number that looks good on milk and really bad in a general election for a party that relies heavily on that bloc for victory.
#2
Stop lying about your height, Mini. That's Mussolini-style bullshit. Have some dignity.
2013 NYP article about Mini and his girlfriend at the time put his height at 5'6".
Here's a roundup of articles on the matter over the years, with some hilarious photos (and a "step-up" video) featuring Mini using a ridiculous box to make him seem taller behind the podium.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/07/2020 6:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Folks, do not look down on Mike Kurtz,
For every belittlement hurts!
As mayor, undefeated
(and never short-sheeted!),
Ace subway fare-ducker
And pickle spear chucker,
He trades up the Hudson
In lifts and a Stetson,
Camped out in his girlfriend's old skirts,
Saving billions by buying kids shirts.
#5
You ever wonder if the crooked faction in the Democrat party is tanking the socialist faction figuring that if they were somehow to beat Trump the crooked faction would lose control entirely.
Can't actually steal the primaries like 2016 so just cock it up and burn it down.
Julie Kelly, who is consistently awesome
[American Greatness] President Trump now stands acquitted. The Democrats must confront the debacle that is their presidential primary field and run on a nonexistent record of achievement as the 2020 campaign season kicks off. Karma, indeed, is a bitch.
Donald Trump couldn't have scripted it better himself: The Democratic Party's karma knocked them right on the head this week as their countrymen watched in disgust‐some, admittedly, in delight.
After three years of deception, gaslighting, and public temper tantrums, these power-hungry partisans finally got their comeuppance. An assembly of agents provocateurs, motivated by an insatiable amount of contempt not just for the president but for Americans in general, who gambled on a farcical impeachment crusade rather than build a persuasive policy case to win over voters this year, are ranting and pouting and tearing up stuff because . . . well, because they are losing. If Nancy Pelosi could have thrown a pacifier from her Capitol high chair Tuesday night, she would have.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/07/2020 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If Nancy Pelosi could have thrown a pacifier from her Capitol high chair Tuesday night, she would have.
#3
"..Pelosi, second-in-line to the presidency of the United States under the Constitution.."
Da fuq she is.
Posted by: Bangkok Billy ||
02/07/2020 6:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mike Pence: "What am I? A potted plant?"
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/07/2020 7:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Doesn't that make Pence first-in-line?
That aside, now for some gloating - it will be thoroughly enjoyable watching this party of adult babies slowly disintegrate over the next nine + months.
[JPost] - I met earlier today one of the leaders of Judea and Samaria standing outside Beit Hadassah. He does a tremendous amount of work for all of the communities in Judea and Samaria. I asked him if they had determined what kind of an answer they were going to give as to acceptance of the Trump plan, including some kind of Palestinian state together with sovereignty over the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, or whether to reject them both. He answered that they had not yet determined their policy decision. I said that the answer is easy.
It’s really very simple. What can we expect from Donald Trump and even from Jared Kushner who don’t live in Israel and are willing to accept creation of a Palestinian state, when there are so many Israelis who also back creation of such a state? If Israelis who have lived through intifadas, terrorist attacks, wars following the expulsion and abandonment of Gush Katif, including the current continuing rocket fire and explosive balloons, still back the idea of Palestinian state, what can we expect from people that don’t live here such as Trump and Kushner?
Whenever WikiLeaks publishes suppressed information about some geopolitical event, it's useful to go back and look at how our media covered the same event. It's a good way to learn how our media create new "truths", especially when it comes to war.
This WL release from October last year proved as educational as any:
"Engineering Assessment of Two Cylinders Observed at the Douma incident - Executive Summary":
The NYT based their conclusion on a simple premise: If the gas-cylinders were dropped from the sky, Assad is guilty, because no one else had aircraft in the airspace above Douma that day.
In their own words:
Because the Syrian military controls the airspace over Douma, it would be almost impossible for the attack to have been staged by opposition fighters who do not have aircraft.
[where "opposition fighters" is code for "jihadists we like". Otherwise they'd be "terrorists."]
The NYT goes on to list three pieces of physical evidence which they claim prove the gas-cylinders were dropped from an aircraft.
The 3 pieces of evidence, as listed by the NYT:
1) Indentation near the nose of the bomb
2) Lattice imprint on the bomb
3) Bomb's rigging found in the debris
As it turns out, the OPCW report directly addresses all 3 items. Here's what the OPCW report says regarding each claim:
NYT claim #1: indentation near the nose [is evidence that the bomb was dropped from an aircraft]
OPCW findings:
Although steel rebar was visible in [] the observed concrete crater, no traces of interaction of the cylinder with the steel rebar were observed on the cylinder.
.
In simulations, steel rebar clearly affected the deformation of the vessel. Indeed, pronounced indents of the steel rebar were obtained.
.
Simulation results indicated that the assumed drop heights, even the lowest one of 500m, were too high to [] reproduce the observed impact event.
Ie. simulations showed that a cylinder of that weight would have crashed through the concrete slab, which it didn't. The OPCW concluded that:
All the elements listed above point to the conclusion that the alleged impact event leading to observed vessel deformation and concrete damage were not compatible.
NYT Claim #2: Lattice imprint on the bomb is evidence that the bomb was dropped from an aircraft.
OPCW findings:
a "criss-cross" pattern was observed on the paintwork of the cylinder body, which was attributed by some observers [like the NYT] as an indication of the cylinder falling through the wire mesh. The explanation however is inconsistent with the vertical, or near vertical angle of incidence of the cylinder
The damage on the cylinder's nose "was caused by an impact under an angle of 20 deg," meaning the cylinder fell almost vertically.
However, the "criss-cross" pattern was made by a horizontal impact, which means it was not formed at the impact site.
NYT claim #3: Bomb's rigging found in the debris is evidence that the bomb was dropped from an aircraft.
OPCW findings:
The presence [] of mangled remains of mild steel framework and fins, and a rather flat truncated conical metal object , were not
consistent with the appearance of the cylinder. Examination of the cylinder did not indicate that it had been fitted with these, nor did it show signs of them having been stripped from the cylinder as a result of impact.
The OPCW overall conclusion [pg 8]:
The dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders and the surrounding scene of the incidents, were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having been delivered from an aircraft.
.
In summary, [] there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft.
Which directly contradicts the NYT.
Thank you WikiLeaks, for once again exposing the deceptive practices of our "most respected" names in news.
The findings above are all related to the gas-cylinder found on the upper floor balcony. There was a 2nd gas-cylinder, found in a bedroom. The NYT makes no claims regarding this 2nd cylinder.
I suppose we'll never know why they ignored it. We can only speculate that it was because the OPCW found
it was not possible to establish a set of circumstances where the post-deformation cylinder [in the bedroom] could fit through the crater with the valve still intact, and the fins deformed in the manner observed.
Comically, sketches on page 13 of the OPCW report show that the bomb's tail fins were wider than the hole in the ceiling.
I recommend reading the OPCW report in full. It lists many other findings that don't align with the pre-cooked version our media have hammered home since 2018.
Commentary:
The NYT's coverage of Douma makes it clear the Judith Miller hoax was not a one-off event. It happened by design, and today there are other Judith Millers in place, ready to inject pro-war bullshit into our news-stream at the bidding of their security-state handlers.
This is how our media is meant to work, and we can be sure the new Judith Millers will re-activate whenever a "crisis initiation" campaign gets under way.
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
02/07/2020 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[20 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Herb, this is what your article looks like with the p, /p formatting you sometimes insist on using instead of using the return button to add a blank line between unformatted paragraphs the way you do otherwise.
#4
I was tired and disorganized last night — Thursdays are full of running around on my own errands and those of the family — I didn’t even do my own articles, never mind dealing with formatting. I got a few articles up this morning, but I had plenty of reason today to be glad that others covered my usual territory. As can be seen I didn’t get to the bottom articles until this evening... but I did make time today for an unexpected tooth extraction. Yay.
[Washington Examiner] With the 2020 campaign cycle in full swing and candidates on both sides of the aisle seeking to champion working women and mothers, the conversation should include answering the questions, "What is pro-woman?" and "Do women need abortion to be empowered?"
Sadly, the abortion industry has convinced many women that children are a burden, clawing at our dreams, and holding us back from our true potential. But mothers know that children fuel our dreams and stretch the limits of our capacities for love. Children reveal what we are capable of and make us stronger.
Meanwhile, the abortion industry tells women that careers are the enemy of motherhood, a lie that was heartbreaking to see actress Michele Williams recently perpetuate. Accepting her Golden Globe last month, Williams attributed her success to a woman’s so-called right to choose an abortion. "I wouldn't have been able to do this," she said holding her trophy, "without employing a woman’s right to choose."
Like many women, Williams is a victim of the abortion industry’s propaganda urging them to trade the endless joys of motherhood by killing their own children for a false idol -- literally a golden idol in Williams’ case.
As a mother, Michele Williams must have a sense for this, which made her speech all the more painful to watch. For a brief moment, she spoke beautifully about the times she felt supported as a woman, "and able to balance our lives knowing as all mothers know that the scales must and will tip toward our children."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[BabylonBee] U.S.‐Should you donate to the politician you think will best help the country? Or should you instead put all that money in a big pile and set it on fire? That has been the eternal question, and a new study aims to answer it.
[NoTricksZone] Today I found an interview with an "environmental expert" by the German alarmist site Klimareporter here. It conveys to us the real aims of the radical climate movement. In a nutshell: To change, limit and dominantly control human behavior.
[WND] By the end of February, the race for the Democratic nomination may have come down to a choice of one of three white men.
[The Federalist] Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg doubled down on his support for late-term, partial-birth abortions during an episode of ABC’s "The View" Thursday in a spar with conservative host Meghan McCain.
[Washington Examiner] The Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report on Thursday, criticizing the Obama administration for being unprepared to combat Russia’s election interference in 2016 and for fumbling the response.
[NYP] Has anyone checked to see if Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez is still breathing?
[Washington Examiner] With the 2020 campaign cycle in full swing and candidates on both sides of the aisle seeking to champion working women and mothers, the conversation should include answering the questions, "What is pro-woman?" and "Do women need abortion to be empowered?"
