Slashdot Mirror

There is no way they're going to prove to anyone now that any controversial moderation decision wasn't forced on them by outside pressure now.

It has already been shown that a relatively small group runs the moderation of both Reddit and Wikipedia and they have some disturbing beliefs and relationships that no one is mentioning because the MSM is not reporting on it, so it's up to places like /pol/ and other fringe outlets to do the research and reporting.

To get on topic, a certain Tom Edwards was Microsoft's head of geopolitical strategy which meant censoring products for the Chinese market. He joined the transgender cult and changed his name to Kate Edwards, then became head of the IGDA and was coordinating with the San Diego FBI to shut down alleged "harassment" of Zoe Quinn in July 2014. Note the date. When the Gamergate scandal broke a month later, Reddit was one of the forums that Shut Down Everything. Four years later, the now heavily censored Reddit attracts $150 million in Chinese investment.

Roger Stone is indicted for blatantly lying before congress and witness tampering.

That would be fair if the law was applied equally, but when are they going to arrest any Democrat for blatantly lying before Congress about running arms to al-Qaeda and Mexican drug lords, giving $billions to Iran, having the GCHQ spy on the opposing party's candidates, or any of a half dozen other scandals that would have gotten anyone other than America's First Black President impeached and possibly hanged for treason, or "witness tampering" Michael Hastings, FBI Anon, the DNC's "Russian hacker", and several pizzagate investigators and sources?

There has been two years of noise about possible Russian interference in the election because Donald Trump did business with the Russians as part of an FBI sting operation that got a Russian bank sanctioned. When are they going to talk about Qatari interference in the election? Do you remember the "Safe Space" campaign a few years ago or the appearance of "Social Justice" "feminists" who never badmouthed Islam but tried to tell you that Hamas was a feminist group? That was them. Have you heard of Common Core? That was also a Qatari operation by the same people who put Jamal Khashoggi at the Washington Post.

And by "hung out" you mean "taken a picture with once". Yeah.

Are you a useful idiot or just an apologist? This is not about "taking pictures", this is about seeking support and working with the Nation of Islam:

"Indeed, it's a sign of Farrakhan's oddly lasting hold on popular influence that he was even invited to clink drinks with the members of the C.B.C."

But his Farrakhan connections go way back.

And let's put this into perspective. Trump was raked over the coals by the national media because he didn't immediately disavow David Duke when a reporter mentioned that Duke supported him. Imagine if that photo was Trump with David Duke instead, surrounded by a bunch of Republican congressmen. The national media storm would have been immense, and it's a story even Trump would not have survived, let alone the congressmen.

1) Russian Oligarch story

2) Free Beacon/Fusion/Steel Timelines I'd suggest clicking on some of the "read more" links for better breakdown of each groups involvement.

3) British volunteers working with Hillary campaign.

These were not necessarily my original sources, just ones at the top of the Google results.

it can't be the primary one.

That is not true at all. Bill Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice (perjury).

You made two mistakes:

Clinton was never indicted for any crime other than obstruction of justice. For one thing, only the house of representatives could start such an action against a sitting president. Just go ahead and ask any lawyer you know whether or not you'll go to jail for lying to the police. It happens all the time. It is illegal no matter why they are interviewing you. This is why a girlfriend can go to jail for obstruction of justice if she provides a false alibi for her boyfriend without committing any other crime. Look it up. Ask a lawyer. Lying and obstructing an investigation is illegal.

I would consider the firing of Comey to be obstruction of justice

Of course, you would — such is your hatred of Trump. And this, too, presumes, Trump was guilty (of something else), was afraid Comey would uncover it, and fired him to avoid the uncovering. For this to make sense, you still need to show, what that "something else" could possibly have been. Until you can state an actual (primary) charge, your complaints of "obstruction" make no sense.

Further, what if I told you, multiple Democrats demanded Comey's firing months and days before Trump done did it? Here:

“My confidence in the FBI director’s ability to lead this agency has been shaken,” said Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia.

If the opposition demanded the man be fired, they can't turn around and cry "crime!" when he finally is fired. And Trump had perfectly good reasons of his own to do it — the leaking of information alone is a fireable offense.

First of all, I do not hate Trump. I have no reason to hate Trump. Do I think he is an idiot? Yes. Do I think he's an embarrassment to the office of the president? Yes. Do I think he only acts in his own best int

it can't be the primary one.

That is not true at all. Bill Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice (perjury).

You made two mistakes:

I would consider the firing of Comey to be obstruction of justice

Of course, you would — such is your hatred of Trump. And this, too, presumes, Trump was guilty (of something else), was afraid Comey would uncover it, and fired him to avoid the uncovering. For this to make sense, you still need to show, what that "something else" could possibly have been. Until you can state an actual (primary) charge, your complaints of "obstruction" make no sense.

Further, what if I told you, multiple Democrats demanded Comey's firing months and days before Trump done did it? Here:

“My confidence in the FBI director’s ability to lead this agency has been shaken,” said Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia.

If the opposition demanded the man be fired, they can't turn around and cry "crime!" when he finally is fired. And Trump had perfectly good reasons of his own to do it — the leaking of information alone is a fireable offense.

None of that changes that Citizens United doesn't produce bona fide documentaries. They produce campaign advertisements disguised as documentaries. It's sort of like how late-night infomercials sometimes pretend to be talk shows. They're ads.

You could say the same thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 and all the other crap Michael Moore has put out.

It's intellectually dishonest to claim that Michael Moore is putting out documentaries and CU is putting out advertising when both are doing pretty much the same thing - they produce advertisements to vote for one side, or at least not vote for the other. Plus of course there's the fact that the First Amendment says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Back when the McCain Feingold bill was signed into law but President Bush he said there were 'serious constitutional concerns'.

https://spectator.org/25356_mc...

Here's a classic example of what I'm talking about when I say that the president has an independent duty to uphold the Constitution rather than simply defer to the Supreme Court: George W. Bush's decision to sign the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill into law. President Bush clearly believed significant parts of the bill were unconstitutional. His own presidential signing statement cited "serious constitutional concerns," "questions [that will] arise under the First Amendment," and "reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising."

The American Spectator links to this

http://supreme.findlaw.com/leg...

Many other Presidents have thought they had an independent duty to prevent violations of the First Amendment, as well as violations of states' rights, criminal defendants' rights, and other constitutional freedoms.

For example, when Congress in its 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts sought to outlaw criticism of incumbents (sound familiar?), Thomas Jefferson campaigned against these laws and later, as President, refused to support a new Sedition Act when the old one expired. Jefferson also pardoned all those who had been convicted under the old Act, even though federal courts had upheld these convictions over First Amendment objections. To Jefferson, the question was not simply what courts had done or might do, but what his own independent constitutional conscience dictated.

Consider also what President Andrew Jackson wrote in 1832, as he vetoed a bill on constitutional grounds even though the Supreme Court had already upheld a similar bill against constitutional challenge:

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.

Before last week, George W. Bush clearly sided with Jefferson and Jackson. During the 2000 campaign, pundit George Will explicitly asked Bush whether he thought "a President has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment he thinks are unconstitutional." Bush's reply was an emphatic "I do."

When asked if he would therefore veto the version of McC

President Clinton interfered with Yeltsin's 1996 re-election, and of course President Obama directly funded the campaign to try to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yeah, we do interfere in other elections...

For the record, as an aside to this, let's set the record straight on DDT:
https://spectator.org/48925_dd...
Other publications follow up on that.
We need less belief and more facts!

You can at least start with the IPCC report

I'm sorry, but that's a rather discredited organization.

then look at the scientific journals that have been published since then

No proof, in other words. As suspected...

No, she wasn't a sore loser at all

Playing what? The "Call Trump Followers Racists" game? [yawn]

Trump's not a racist. You just have an uber-corrupt failure of a candidate that needs distraction.

Read this: http://spectator.org/64643_whe...

And watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And, of course, watch O'Keefe's releases this week as he proves that the DNC is fabricating all these claims of violence and racism just for bird dogs like you.

Had two of the eight helicopters in Operation Eagle Claw failed instead of three, he'd be remembered very differently.

Well, that's not necessarily true. Eagle Claw was a horribly complex affair that probably wouldn't have worked anyway. It's highly probable, that with more helicopters available it would just have failed later, with more spectacular casualties.

As a matter of fact, the failure led to sweeping changes in the US special operations community, leading directly to the establishment of SOCOM. This wouldn't have happened if the operation had failed just because of a couple of helicopters with poor maintenance record. Instead the powers that be could no longer ignore the glaring problems and lack of capability at all levels of the US military establishment when it came to operations like this, and a whole command was established to deal with them.

You say you hate Trump and do not plan to vote for him.... THAT is how the Clintons always "get away with it"

"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." - John Stuart Mill

If your reaction to corruption on this scale is to sigh, and say "I'm too good to vote to change it", then you are looking-on and doing nothing when you HAD a choice to vote to force the rotten establishments of BOTH parties to WAKE UP and reform.

The Trumpster is FAR from my personal ideal candidate.... but there are good reasons while the elites in BOTH parties despise the guy and are throwing all the mud at him that they can including the most recent hyper-phoney "anti-semite" charge that he hates Jews because he used a 6-pointed star in an anti-Hillary tweet (hint: and ACTUAL "Star of David" uses a pair of overlayed triangles like on the Israeli flag, rather than a filled-in 6-pointed star like on nearly every law-enforcement badge and seal in the US). Trump pissed off all these same elites in the 90s when he violated the unwritten rules of the elites of Palm Beach Florida and opened his club to Jews and Blacks and then rubbed it in the face of the town council there by sending them a copy of the classic Hepburn, Tracy and Poitier flick "Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner" (which highlights elites and their hypocrisies on race relations)

Weather Underground has posted a fascinating discussion of the recent improvements made to the major weather models that are used to forecast hurricanes and the like

Pardon me, but Weather Underground was (is?) a far-left terrorist organization with a respectable number of murders and robberies to its name. Some of its surviving members are teaching students these days, and have likely influenced the President, but they aren't teaching them anything about predicting weather.

There isn't a great deal of difference to me between a government or a multitude of corporations making themselves privy to an increasing share of our personal lives

Actually, the difference is vast: for a corporation to compel either you or another corporation to reveal any data, it has to win legal case — or, a least, convince a judge to issue a subpoena. The government has been gradually lowering this bar for itself over the years — recall the "National Security Letters" (and how easy they are for the government to obtain).

And that's when it bothers with the legal process at all — often it can simply just bust in and take your stuff (without warrant), seize any property on mere accusation of it being used in a crime, and confiscate bank accounts without even an accusation, only suspicion , or, as was the case with Reason.com, demand your "voluntary" cooperation or else...

But my point was not, that the government ought not to investigate legitimate threats against judges and public officials — even hard-core Libertarians would agree, that this is, actually, a proper role of the government. The point is, this particular investigation was patently illegitimate — the "threats" were bogus and hyperbolic and DoJ could not possible have hoped to ever win a conviction.

Their intention was to simply harass the dissenters by hitting them with subpoenas and giving them threatening "talking-tos". The prosecution, in other words, was malicious. That's the disgusting part.

The aspects of Libertarianism that relate to being largely left alone to pursue our lives appeal to me [...] The eagerness of Libertarians to remove regulations on corporate behavior

But there is no difference! What's good for the goose, is good for the chicken as well:

• If a corporation can not discriminate on race or age in hiring a secretary, then you can not discriminate on same in hiring a babysitter.
• If a corporation's employees can vote to obligate their employer to only hire from the same union they just joined, by what logic should your local supermarket be unable to vote itself into becoming the sole legal source of groceries for you?
• If a strip-club can not turn away a transgender entertainer, then you can not be averting your eyes from "her" either — and it would be manifestly bigoted of you to not stick your dollar-bills right next to "her" penis.

Even more obvious examples abound. For example, the EPA considers any billabong in the US to be under its control and protection — so both private citizens and corporations alike now need a Federal Government's approval to build anything on their property, if it happens to have a lake, a stream, or a swamp, however small...

It's okay for global corporations to finance the election?

Your rhetorical question is the same as "is it Ok for child-molesters to roam the streets" — you need to seriously violate privacy rights of everybody to even learn, which money comes from "global corporation" or who is a known "sex offender".

And the answer to both questions is "Yes". You can ask a politician, who gave him money — and draw conclusions from answers or evasions — but you can not ban it outright. Certainly not according to Slashdot's prevailing opinion.

So universal health care is a bad thing?

It is certainly something USSR had — and it was as bad as the rest of what they had USSR.

Ultimately, it is unfair — a citizen pays taxes into the common pool, but, when he needs treatment, it is up to the pool's administrators to decide, what is and what is not "appropriate" treatment (or, maybe, he deserves only the end-of-life counselling). Sure, insurance companies have a very similar arrangement (except any of them would be torched to the ground for even mentioning EOL), but insurance companies compete with each other and people can switch between them as they see fit.

Didn't Romney try this somewhat in MA?

"Somewhat" is a qualifier, you can drive a truck through, is not it? Your question is irrelevant, though, and the answer is "No" — Romney did not introduce "Universal" healthcare in Massachusetts.

How about when a gay couple adopt children

Is a paraplegic being discriminated against, when he is told, he can not play volleyball or practice karate? If the law requires adoptions to favor married couples, then any unmarried couple is disqualified. It is not anybody's fault that (most) gays would not marry — any more than that the paraplegic can neither jump nor kick.

But "discrimination" it is not — and neither the gays' nor the paraplegics' predicament can be rectified by a politician or any legislation, only by, one hopes, some future medical breakthroughs.

Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America's ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

read the rest here.

Yes, I can document NASA's task change.

Under the auspices of the White House OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy), the NTSC (National Science and Technology Council) created CENRS (Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability) as a response to a presidential mandate in 1989 (in case you were wondering, this was under president George H.W. Bush).

The CENRS created as part of itself the SGCR (Subcommittee on Global Change Research), which is the steering committee for the USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program), which consists of 13 organizations:

- Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Agency for International Development
- Department of the Interior
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Defense (Acting)
- Smithsonian Institution
- Department of Agriculture
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration http://www.globalchange.gov/ab...
From their web site.

As part of this, as a result of a presidential budgetary mandate by President Obama that an additional $1.8B (for a total of $2.4B) be earmarked for the Earth Observation Satellites (effectively canceling the asteroid capture mission - this i a redirection of existing budget, not an increase of funds):

http://www.nasa.gov/about/obam...
Obama's April 15th 2010 speech at Kennedy:

"We will increase Earth-based observation to improve our understanding of our climate and our world -- science that will garner tangible benefits, helping us to protect our environment for future generations."

http://inhabitat.com/obama-giv...

"NASA’s about to lend a heavier hand in the fight against climate change. The news that President Obama would be rearranging NASA’s budget to focus more on what can be done to stop global warming was met with some opposition, but we’re elated that he’s bringing some of that cash down to Earth."

See also:

http://inhabitat.com/obama-giv...
http://spectator.org/blog/5978...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-...
http://inhabitat.com/new-nasa-...

Meanwhile, actual NASA budgets have remained flat, so these monies have come from actual space and aeronautics programs, rather than new budget:

http://www.behindmyback.org/20...
"NASA’s investment in the 13-AGENCY CCSP is 58% of the total amount of the President’s 2009 Budget Request for CCSP."
= most of the money is coming from NASA.

See also this report, which indicates that 37% of the 2014 NASA budget went to the Earth science program, supporting climate change research - and NOT space or aeronautics research:
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/m...

But you know... feel free to argue with the congressional record, newspapers, NASA itself, and President Obama's speech at Kennedy.

If you don't believe me, here is the Guvmint weighing in on the matter:

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/d...

We will perhaps one day reach the point where the apparent need to grease the skids for females will ring as hollow as Republican laments of "Won't someone think of the wealthiest?" Perhaps nearer than we think.

http://spectator.org/articles/...

..What causes [Obama] to keep doing this?

Maybe this has something to do with it:

The American Association for Justice, formerly and more accurately known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, gave 96 percent of all its contributions so far this year to Democrats. A fluke? They gave Democrats 96 percent in 2012, 97 percent in 2010, and 95 percent in 2008. The Washington Examiner’s 2011 investigative reporting showed that, of political contributions given in 2010 by the employees and partners at the top 110 plaintiff’s firms in the United States, 97 percent went to Democrats.

Democrats’ reliance on this legal gravy train was highlighted two years ago when Sherry Sylvester of Texans for Lawsuit Reform wrote an article claiming that 80 percent of all contributions to the state Democratic Party over the previous decade came from trial lawyers. The bean counters at Politifact weighed in to declare that she was mostly right, but that the real fraction was closer to 75 percent. Read that again: Three-quarters of the Texas Democratic Party’s cash came from trial lawyers.

The sad thing is... that Obama probably doesn't know either way.

So you're thinking that the Obama administration isn't even "transparent" to Obama? ...... I'm not buying that.

Shades of, "If Only the Tsar Knew! "

"This year [2008], the government-watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste named Grassley the fourth biggest GOP earmarker. The senator has proven himself a champion spender of other people’s money." http://spectator.org/archives/2008/06/10/chuck-grassley-king-of-pork

Translating the US tax code into software is probably a task rivaling some of the most complex software problems out there...

Absolutely. This is just one of the early signs of the train wreck that is Obamacare. You just can't have a bunch of different Congressional staffers write different parts of a gigantic, complex bill involving a huge part of the economy, cram it through Congress along party lines, and expect the thing to work. They've already had to kill three sections of it, and delay the employer mandate.

Far, far simpler government IT projects (internal systems for single departments, e.g. the FBI's Virtual Case File) have failed miserably. Obamacare requires a public-facing system that connects to many other systems at the federal and state level, and complies with HIPAA requirements. I'm no expert on huge IT projects, but I don't see how this is going to be up and running in October, if ever.

Seriously, do you ever take than tin foil hat off? Audit Obama's campaign records and then talk shit about untold riches. Yep, all those innocent Democratic Klan members:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/democrats-make-it-official-they-ll-take-undisclosed-donations-too-20110429

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/02/obama-vs-the-undisclosed-donor

https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/17875/funding

http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/obamas_small_donor_myth.php

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/10/those-undisclos/

http://pumapac.org/forums/feck-obama-team/

no way to protect yourself on the Internets except to be a law-abiding person.

Ain't gonna help you... Phone- and video-sex are still legal, for just one example. But, if you've ever any of that, a dedicated law-enforcer may use that as a leverage to blackmail you later in life. Or pass the embarrassing records to some non-government organization. IRS have already done that.All for the Greater Good, of course.

It does not even have to be ordered from the top: recall the Joe the Plumber incident. The man asked Obama — then merely a presidential candidate — an inconvenient question and a government official (those guys always favor the party of bigger government) leaked his personal information so as to make it easier to spin things Obama's way. The three officials involved merely lost their jobs for it — but none even paid a fine, much less served jail time.

It's just that even more than a cursory examination of these "scandals" reveals them to either be normal function of government misconstrued as a crime or a legitimate problem bent completely out of factual frame of reference in order to blame the president.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "The buck stops here"? The idea is that the President is the top guy, and is responsible for everything.

For example, in the aftermath of Hurricaine Katrina, just about the entire news media held George W. Bush personally responsible for the failures of FEMA, because Bush was the President.

There are two possibilities here. Either Mr. Obama knew and approved of the IRS actions, or he didn't. The former means he is a crooked politician, and the latter means he does not have full control of the machinery of government. If you are a fan of Mr. Obama, you better hope it's the latter. (And if you blamed W for Katrina, I hope you also blame Mr. Obama for the IRS scandal; fair is fair.)

So, when I say the government is far too big and needs to be trimmed way the hell down, will you tell me I am "paranoid" for worrying that government will get out of control?

As to the entire rest of your post, I can't imagine the level of self-awareness you must lack to write all that in the context of discussing paranoia and not recognize it as such. There is almost nothing there but conspiracy theories unbacked by evidence.

IRS evidence (citations from IG report, ProPublica, USA Today... and a Jon Stewart Daily Show clip)
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348410/tea-party-irs-scandal-facebook-faq

IRS asked a group to publish the contents of their prayers (freedom of speech? separation of church and state?)
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/irs-conservative-group-2009-members-pray-193833144.html

Discussion of possible union connection.
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking

Wikipedia discussion of Wide Receiver and FaF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#Operation_Wide_Receiver

Inspector General's report on Fast and Furious.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/testimony/t1220.pdf

So now, your turn. What is your explanation for the difference between Wide Receiver and FaF? (If you are going to say "they were the same" then go read that IG report and try again.) Please tell me some theory as to why guns were allowed to walk with absolutely no attempts to track them and without warning the Mexican authorities that this was going to happen.

Partisan? The Ruling Class may own some parties, but it really isn't partial to any. Like a good parental overlord.

When was the last time N Korea arrested visitors saying they were CIA spies? On the contrary, N Korea is very welcoming to foreigners, including Americans.

Charges as CIA spies? How bourgeois. It is much simpler and a better reflection of North Korean socialist morality to just hold a trial.

2 U.S. reporters get 12 years in N. Korea - June 08, 2009

Two American television journalists today were convicted of a "grave crime" against North Korea and sentenced to 12 years of hard labor, a move that increased mounting tensions between the U.S. and the reclusive Asian state.

Laura Ling and Euna Lee, reporters for San Francisco-based Current TV, were sentenced by the top Central Court in Pyongyang in a two-day trial that started Friday as U.S. officials demanded the release of the two women.

The state-run Korean Central News Agency reported that the court "sentenced each of them to 12 years of reform through labor" but gave no further details.

Because the pair were tried by the nation's highest court, there can be no appeal.

Of course the North Koreans are not especially shy about grabbing Americans.

North Korea says it has arrested American citizen - Sun December 23, 2012
North Korea arrests American; continues shelling near disputed border - January 28, 2010
North Korea arrests US man - December 29, 2009

And foreigners? The North Korean government loves foreigners. . . in a sort of "collect them and trade them!" kind of way.

Japanese kidnapped by North Koreans return home in tears
Kidnapped by North Korea
Armed North Koreans kidnap Chinese sailors
Jenkins Photo Proof Of Kidnapping? - ". . .she is a Thai national who was kidnapped by North Korean agents. . ."
Did North Korea Just Kidnap Two American Journalists?
Kidnappers Incorporated
Japanese families fear that North Korea is still abducting - North Korea had kidnapped nationals from at least 11 other countries, including France, Italy and the United States.

It seems they want to impress them, not arrest them.

Impress them in a Potemkin village sort of way, yes.

Welcome to Lenin Disney: North Korea’s otherworldly tourism experience

The surreality of visiting North Korea begins at customs. Officials in full military dress — and there are a lot of them, judging by this clandestine video shot by a Canadian tourist — announce that anyone carrying a cell phone must surrender it, to be returned on leaving. The experience gets weirder from there, based on the numerous travelogues and reports that have emerged since the country lifted many of its restrictions on American tourists in 2010.

Tourism is an opportunity for North Korea, whic

. . . there is absolutely no guarantee in black box voting (especially the kind with no paper audit) that voters' votes are being counted. We have examples of elections where votes were NOT counted and the machines were manipulated to fix the results.

I'll agree with you on that one, that black box is not the way to go. I think optical scan machines are a better route.

No, but you learn very quickly what the boss wants and expects without him having to be explicit.

I think you are overstating things there - major vote fraud by "warm/cold" and foot stamps is not likely. I also can't imagine too many people intelligent enough to work on code for a voting system that also wouldn't be intelligent enough to see the serious downsides there, and would want it in writing - exactly what do you want me to do? If nothing else, they would need to document how to execute the fraud, and communicate that to the people doing it. Still, see my answer above.

And thank god they've got your back, too.

I think it is a good thing they exist, I just think it is nonsense that they are being brought in to American elections.* But, it is certainly within the right of the organization to ask for them, just as it is within the rights of others to point out the foolishness.

*I'm willing to grant the case of Chicago - something must be done about the Zombie voters. Besides, how many governors in a row have gone to jail now? Chicago could play in the same league as Massachusetts.

"Breaking the Law is useful in enforcing the Law that is illegal under the foundation of Law."

Wonderful little police state you got there.

Most people here will mistakenly think your comment is snide, but isn't it closer to the mark to call it appreciation tinged with envy?* Of course it isn't true, the United States isn't a police state. Defending yourself against would-be mass murderers, that is terrorists as opposed to political dissenters, is not oppression. Neither is surveillance on people in direct contact with Al Qaida oppression. You'll know the United States is a genuine police state when "slandering the state" earns you 10 years in a labor camp as was common under various socialist regimes of the sort you don't seem to criticize much.

The United States isn't quite there yet as President Obama's "Green Jobs Czar", Van Jones, was just a little too openly radical for the present age.

Proposed Soviet Legal Code to Retain Execution - By ESTHER B. FEIN, Special to the New York Times, December 18, 1988

Groups and individuals monitoring human rights have been anticipating the legal changes, hoping that they would eliminate articles that have been used to suppress and punish political dissent - in particular, Article 70, which sanctions imprisonment for anti-Soviet agitation, and Article 190, which allows it for anti-Soviet slander. But the ''guidelines for criminal legislation of the U.S.S.R. and the constituent republics,'' do not mention either article. They deal with some, but not all, of the individual statutes, and mostly offer direction to the 15 republics for rewriting their criminal codes.

* Nobody should be confused about the willingness of would-be revolutionaries to fight the system they intend to overthrow with its own procedures (Rule 4) to maximize their opportunity to act legally while working to subvert the nation. (Once power passes to them, surprises can follow.) The founding leadership of the ACLU is a case in point:

First, Roger Baldwin: Baldwin was the founder of the ACLU . . . Baldwin was an atheist. He was also a onetime communist, who, among other ignoble gestures, wrote a horrible 1928 book called Liberty Under the Soviets. Notably, he was smart enough not to join Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Other early officials of the ACLU, which was founded almost exactly the same time as the American Communist Party, included major party members like William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Louis Budenz (who later broke with the party). Communists used the ACLU to deflect questions from the U.S. government over whether they were loyal to the USSR, were serving Joe Stalin in some capacity, and were committed to the overthrow of the American system. . . .

So bad had been the ACLU in aiding and abetting American communists that various legislative committees, federal and state, considered whether it was a communist front. The 1943 California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities reported that the ACLU "may be definitely classed as a communist front." The committee added that "at least 90 percent of its [the ACLU's] efforts are expended on behalf of communists who come into conflict with the law." That 90-percent figure was consistent with a major report produced by Congress a decade earlier, January 17, 1931. --- The ACLU's Not-So-Holy Tri

Politicians should be a minor issue, no different than being a job applicant for the people to hire, based on the applicants ability to integrate and implement the funding instructions of the people

The Government has failed budgeting and accounting massively. http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Why do we still use Voting machines? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV_ZerkPIMU&feature=player_embedded
Contrary to what many think, the U.S. is not a Democracy, its a Republic - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY
"No Taxation without representation" So do lying politicians represent you? (one of many links) http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/31/big-lies-in-politics

So how do we correct these obvious spoiled addiction failures?

Taxpayers are to define where their taxes are to be allocated/used. Me regarding mine and your regarding yours, etc. Like open source or crowd sourcing fund. Option to "trust the government to decide" is also available to those who do, or some portion of their taxes. The tax processors at all the different levels of government (i.e. local, state, federal) are to allocate each taxpayers taxes as instructed by that taxpayer and provide a receipt of having done so. If the tax processing agencies of government cannot do this then we can do this through credit unions and provide the tax processing agencies with receipts to our funding. Government must prove it is using our funding correctly before it is reimbursed (obviously it has unlimited borrowing power otherwise we'd not be in such deficit). It is the debt of the few who created the debt not by the choice of the people but by their own decision. This way they can file bankruptcy rather than bankrupting those not responsible for teh actions of the obviously spoiled.

The voting process is only to determine who to hire to implement the job the taxpayers and voters (who can vote to help determine where the funding of "trust the government to decide") is used. This way "No Taxation without representation" is not violated.

Of course this means government has to be transparent regarding what it believes it needs funding for and each of the people can decide for themselves to fund or not. However, amendment 16 of the U.S. Constitution give power to congress to lay and collect taxes. However if does not and cannot say where those taxes are to be used. Otherwise it would be in violation of the Declaration of Independence (a document that gives each of us the right and duty to do this core change).

Taxes are to be used within the constraint of: Supporting the organized structures for the optimization of teamwork benefits shared and the funding of generating such benefits. Taxes are not to be defined by the tax payers or voters as being beneficial solely to that taxpayer or voter, but must be in a manner of teamwork benefits shared.

The only thing lacking here for this core change to be initiated is the paper work for the taxpayers to define where the taxes they pay are to be used and the allocation system for the tax processors which include a receipt/verification feedback loop. We file tax returns at least once a year, and here is where we allocate/instruct government of where our funding is to be used.

Does any of the babbling of political campaigns express any candidates ability to do this job?

Here you go. Here is a Link to a story where someone does a thorough analysis of that document.

No sorry, this is clearly a witch hunt.

Read here: http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/17/top-mann-nemesis-hes-not-a-fra

it was an extremely odd audience reaction: McIntyre received a standing ovation upon his introduction, thanks to his dogged research and unrelenting demand for information and accountability, but then his blase' attitude about scientists' behavior -- particularly Mann's -- left most of the audience cold and some even angry. The applause for McIntyre was tepid upon the conclusion of his remarks.

Clearly the supporters of the audit are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in seeing Mann fail, regardless of the evidence. Get off your high 'this is fraudulent use of tax dollars!' horse and actually look at the evidence and conclusions - not what the crackpot right wing tells you to think.

the Santorum is surging.

Actually, I just came across a column that discusses just that relative to environmental degradation earlier today: http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/10/epa-jackboots. As for labor abuse, the actual "historic evidence" that without government intervention it will happen, the fact is that it only happened in circumstances where there was a surplus of labor and the "abuses" actually represented an improvement over the condition that many of those laborers would have been in were it not for the job offered under those conditions. Additionally, some of those labor abuses occurred because of government intervention that allowed a limited number of companies to be the only viable source of employment.

I just read an article about how environmental issues were resolved before the EPA was created. I am not sure how accurate his portrayal is. However, it is actually a way that could work. So, the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act may have actually allowed companies to get away with polluting where they would otherwise been sued to bankruptcy. Additionally, a man was sent to jail for cleaning up an illegal dump because it violated the Clean Water Act.

Can you show me a link that says the federal spending as increased a negative 2.7% under Obama, please. All I can find is how he has increased it by 21.78%, thanks. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/12/happy-tax-freedom-day to quote the part "the three years of the Obama Administration have been three record-setting years of federal government regulation and spending -- a 21.78 percent increase relative to the average size of the federal government between 1977 and 2008." And that doesn't even include the Obamacare that will increase spending. Thanks a head of time.

My mistake, 53%. But it looks like Carter era rates > 70% are back in, and some democrats (remember, the guys who championed slavery about 100 years ago?) don't see anything wrong with taxation as high as 94% as they were in the 1950s, more great democrat ideas. Conservative Republicans (remember the guys who were founded as the abolitionist party?) want to spend less money and tax you and me less.

Conservatives are not the demons here, they want to spend less of our money on bull shit of any kind. On the other hand, the democrats want to spend more, on anything and everything so much more that we need to continuously raise the debit ceiling without explanation. In the opinion of "progressive liberals" nothing is outside of the scope of "things the government should be involved in". Where money can be spent by the government, outside of defending ourselves from foreign invaders of course, spend it!

The government never has enough power! Liberals opine: If only Obama had dictatorial control over the country! Obama isn't against that, indeed, he argues that Obama can do this debit ceiling stuff himself under the 14th amendment. Of course using this liberal reading of the 14h amendment, why, congress really doesn't hold any power over the spending of the executive branch. Similar arguments have been made, for example a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause in Wickard v. Filburn. And of course they're using the same argument to compel everyone to buy health insurance.

Was I wrong? Ya, I'll admit that, but I'm not crazy by any measure, I was just off by 17%.

The only people who are saying "default for the first time in history" are Democrats who are fear mongering to scare little girls like you; and it has happened before. The reality is that the United States would not default; the government would use the money it brings in to service the debt and there would be a partial government shutdown.

The spectator goes on to point out that at the time the dollar was backed by gold. Presently the US dollar is backed by the US dollar, which makes a potential default impossible as the Fed can just print more money.... unless the rest of the world stops using the US dollar as its reserve currency. I'm not an economist or an accountant, but it seems to me that the resulting inflation would make it impossible for the government to service the debt. Again, this hinges on the rest of the world changing reserve currencies, but really what incentive to non-US nations have to stick with the US dollar?

Unfortunately, when the entire opposition party has made their one and only goal your destruction, you can't really do anything about it. They're willing to push the country into default for the first time in history, destroying the lives of millions.

The only people who are saying "default for the first time in history" are Democrats who are fear mongering to scare little girls like you; and it has happened before. The reality is that the United States would not default; the government would use the money it brings in to service the debt and there would be a partial government shutdown.

Medicare could easily be fixed by going to a sane public health system like every other developed country (the US pays twice as much per capita for medical care than any other developed country).

So if we have the government pay for MORE people's healthcare, it will cost the government LESS money? That's not what the CBO says.

For one thing, you fail to realize those ships are taken out of service because they're worn out and because it would be too expensive to overhaul them and make them safe and reliable to continue operations.

My friend who works at Puget Sound did tell me, after I wrote what you read, that the Kitty Hawk was in rather poor shape. The link about the Enterprise's recent maintenance period gave a number of reasons why it cost 50% more than planned - completely rusted pipes, only ship of it's class, etc. But all that stuff's been taken care of now... I do wonder when the reactors were last replaced. How many trips around the world could it take on the remaining fuel?

Last night I discovered that the USS Nassau is being decommissioned in about 2 weeks. I think it'd be ideal for this kind of conversion. Depending on its condition, of course, but certainly better than the JFK, Kitty Hawk, Ranger, etc.

For another, your friend talks of sailors being 'parked'. Nothing could be further from the truth, sailors on shore duty aren't 'parked' - they're assigned to a job (teaching school, working at a shoreside maintenance facility, whatever).

I understand that there's a Navy Reserve - I'd staff my disaster relief ship with semi-retired sailors first.

Even accepting the massive disruptions of pulling them from those jobs - they aren't qualified to go to sea. Their qualifications are expired and their skills rusty. Figure on weeks or months to spin up a crew to reasonable proficiency

While you're quite correct that I don't have much practical experience with the Navy, I don't think most of the jobs on the repurposed Enterprise would compare to the USS Enterprise that needs to be ready to launch fighters and bomb shit 24/7. Catapulting and catching airplanes is a big deal. Loading and launching Helicopters, not so much.

One of the things I said in my post from Sunday (linked above, somewhere) was that 'someone' should at least do a proper study to figure out what they'd need to do to dedicate a retired ship to disaster relief. I've heard from a couple of Enterprise veterans who like the idea. The pilot-veteran wasn't especially enthusiastic, but his concerns were mostly about 'cost' and manpower.

Someone else had the same idea today: A Great White Fleet for the 21st Century. I'd like to think that he found my website sometime over the past 7 months, but... .Sometimes good ideas emerge in multiple locations spontaneously.

The main thing is to do a proper study.

You mean a second party. See Angelo Codevilla.

Don't be upset that the violence incited by your party's leaders had led to assassination. Own it.

2010 will be primary season by Kos
Of course, this takes more than just bitching about your frustrations on a blog, damning a whole party for the actions of a minority more scared of Mr. 28% than of protecting the Constitution they swore to protect. This takes hard work. But now is the time to start.

And while people like me will focus on the task at hand this year, it won't be long after Election Day that we'll start looking at the 2010 map, looking for those great primary challengers.

Who to primary? Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I've bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis.

Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)

Kos isn't the only one.

Kanjorski on Gov.-Elect Rick Scott: "Shoot Him"
Congressman Paul Kanjorski, the Pennsylvania Democrat who just lost his seat to Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, a Republican, had another target on his mind before he lost his election.

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him [sic] and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

Hate radio?

LIBTALKER: TIME TO DIE
MALLOY (36:25): Well, keep it up boys, just keep it up, um except for one thing: you rat bastards are going to cause another Murrah federal building explosion, you are. And then - what is Beck - maybe at that point Beck will do the honorable thing and blow his brains out.

Maybe at that point, Limbaugh will do the honorable thing and just gobble up enough - enough Viagra that he becomes absolutely rigid and keels over dead.

Maybe then O'Reilly will just drink a vat of the poison he spews out on America every night and choke to death! Because that's what's gonna to happen, that's what they are pushing these right-wing, nut case, fringe, militia jerk-wads to doing!

I know you know that isn't even scratching the surface, or digging for crazy.... well... maybe Malloy. But don't kid yourself there either... I've heard way worse from Malloy.

If you think that the hate is limited to the Right, you are sadly mistaken:

Arsonist Strikes on Cape Cod, Leaves Calling Card: ‘F–k the Rich’.
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsonist-strikes-on-cape-cod-leaves.html

Kanjorski on Gov.-Elect Rick Scott: “Shoot Him.”
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/09/kanjorski-on-gov-elect-rick-sc

“A Madison man was arrested Tuesday in connection with a bomb threat Sunday afternoon that disrupted a town Republican fundraiser featuring Senate candidate Linda McMahon.”
http://insidemadison.com/index.php/2010/09/15/ssuspect-arrested-in-madison-bomb-threat

Gunman who took hostages at Discovery Channel inspired by Al Gore.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

James Cameron: Shoot Climate 'Deniers,' Glenn Beck a 'F------ A--hole'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/03/24/james-cameron-shoot-climate-deniers-glenn-beck-f-hole-0

I honestly could go on and on and on. Just do some basic Google searches.

Seriously, how must hate was spewed by the left against Bush during his entire administration? Why wasn't Al Gore blamed for the Discovery Channel hostage situation? Truth is, you just want to twist a mentally disturbed individual's actions in order to score political points. And that makes you part of the problem in this country.

DDT is safe, and doesn't thin bird shells: http://spectator.org/archives/2005/02/25/ddt-fraud-and-tragedy

Total scam and lies for the purpose of raising $

There appears yet controversy surrounding the DDT/eggshell link. There's this article here: http://spectator.org/archives/2005/02/25/ddt-fraud-and-tragedy which purports to show that there is no link. I also found this link, which seems to indicate that Raptors and 'sensitive' birds were affected by DDE: http://reason.com/archives/2004/01/07/ddt-eggshells-and-me What seems clear is that DDT was banned for political not scientific reasons and that ban has killed a lot of people.

Is your blog limited to Bushy actions, or can it include something that smells more like Nixon? Well, not so much the content of the scandal as the stonewalling.

Looks like someone in the White house offered two congressmen jobs in exchange for dropping their challenges to incumbent democratic congressmen. I only heard about it because Sestak is a rep in my state. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs keeps turning aside questions about the issue, probably because it's a felony.

Who said I'm the only one that's discovered it?

I guess you get all of your news from Keith Olbermann, eh?