Sieg Hill!! Sieg Hill!!

Once again a fanaticism from another time rears its head in America. At a Trump gathering in Minneapolis people lie in wait outside, then attack people who attended the meeting. They chase people, beat them up and jump up and down on their cars as they try to escape. Police are there, but nothing is done to stop the violence. Sound familiar?

Same thing in San Jose in June, mob violence against Trump supporters trying to take part in the democratic process.  Some bloodied, cars demolished, some running for their lives chased down by the mob. The mayor of San Jose, a democrat,  not only limited police presence at the rally in an obvious attempt to encourage violence, but said afterword that it was okay to use violence against people you disagree with.

In Arizona a mob blocked a highway to prevent people from attending a trump rally. A sheriff attempting to enforce law then finds himself threatened by democrats in the state.

The world has seen this before. When we were kids, at least when I was a kid, we all asked the question, how could the German people just stand by and let it happen? Well the best answer was always "magic". His oratory was hypnotizing, the Germans were fooled by a master speaker, the anti-christ or whatever.

But what was it really like? Germany passes a law making gun ownership illegal, and everyone turns in their guns to the state. 24 hours after that deadline, Jews all over the country are attacked and businesses destroyed in what became known as Kristallnacht. The violence was blamed on the victims, the Jews themselves. The only thing the German people heard was the propaganda, there was no Fox News channel in 1930's Germany, no alternate sources of information. The Brown Shirts, Hitler's private army, were "defenders of the German people", trying to right "clear" injustices that were being visited upon the innocents.

Germans supported him fanatically, many rank and file Germans willing to do violence to protect their country from the internal threat. Even upper class Jews supported him for a while, thinking that he wasn't really talking about them.

Today that should sound very familiar. History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes, as Mark Twain may have said. Today we find ourselves at the beginning of a long rap, where fascism is being employed by rank and file supporters of Hillary Clinton, and threatens to become part of our everyday lives.

The parallels are uncanny. When Trump supporters are attacked by the mobs, the media gives very little coverage. What they do say is that Trump and his supporters "incite violence". The main stream media, what we used to call "the state media" when it was another country, blames the victims. If someone who the media decides is a Trump supporter hits someone at all, it makes headline news, and video is covered around the country in all time slots. The narrative, what we used to call "the propaganda", is that Trump supporters are a violent lot, and the rest of us need protection from these brutish thugs. Then the protesters, or what in 1930's Germany were called "the Brown Shirts", show up to defend our nation from the brutish Trump supporters.

 Think back to the weeks long invented controversy, invented by our state media, claiming Trump wouldn't "disavow" David Duke. Duke is the media's symbol for the KKK. Do you think it's odd that Trump was not asked to disavow the KKK, but rather some guy who no one but Rachel Maddow pays attention to? Oh, and she does by the way. During primary season she slavishly follows his twitter, waiting desperately for him to say something, which she immediately goes public with on MSNBC during their primary coverage. You would think he was a former president the way she announces his tweets with solemn "I told you Trump was bad" importance, giving Duke the best media coverage he's ever gotten. Its bizarre to see, if not comical.

Trump was supposed to know that State Media Rules are that David Duke = KKK. When they ask him about David Duke, their rule is "when we say Duke, we are really saying KKK". So when he doesn't get that, the state media gets to spend weeks claiming Trump would not disavow "David Duke -and- the KKK". It is narrative. Propaganda.

To date no one has ever asked Hillary Clinton to disavow her violent supporters, to disavow her mobs chasing down their fellow Americans and beating them because they disagree on politics. She's never asked to disavow the mobs jumping on cars trying to leave the rally. They will ask Trump why he refuses to dial down the "violent rhetoric", even actually accusing him of threatening Clinton with assassination recently. Hillary doesn’t have to answer for her mobs, her private army. Instead the media blames the victims.

None dare call her Fascist. She has a private army today, though allows proxies to organize and run the mob. Millions of Americans today take part in the political process at risk of violence due to her mobs and her defacto support of the violence. Today her army commits nationalistic acts of violence against our country's perceived internal enemies, to protect the innocents. And all the while she accuses Trump of inciting the violence, and accuses him of nationalism.

Democrats often get accused of following the Saul Alinsky playbook. I think Clinton is following a much darker playbook, spelled out in 1930's Germany. If she wins, past will be prologue.

Sieg Hillary.

While Waiting for Pre-Crime... Governments Invent the Inverse: "Lookback"

You probably remember Pre-Crime. From the Spielberg/Cruise movie Minority Report (and series on SyFy channel), based on a Philip K. Dick story, where three pre-cognitive's are able to see crimes before they happen. The murderer gets arrested before ever committing the crime. 

We don't have this yet, though if the government ever needed to get rid of political opponents, it would pre-crime would be a handy tool. Not just political opponents... how about anyone dissenting with main stream dogma.

Several states and the Federal government are doing the next best thing. They've come up with a new concept. It's real and it has had immediate impact. The new concept is called "Lookback".

The US Treasury dept issued a new regulation a few days ago. The regulation goes back three years, and says that if a company wasn't a certain size three years ago, they cannot merge with a foreign company. The rule was actually written, tweaked, to have an affect on one single company. And it stopped a massive biotech merger in it's tracks.... the two companies called off the merger today after only a day or two after the new rule was made public.

There are a bunch of states doing something similar, I'll get to that in a second. In the cases of the Federal government and the states, the one goal of changing law retroactively is to collect more money from companies.

America is known the world over for "rule of law". That means the law rules. It can change tomorrow, but you will never get hauled off for doing something 3 years ago that was legal 3 years ago. If it becomes illegal today, that's where the line is drawn. Getting dragged off today for that act, or statement, or opinion that was legal three years ago is the sort of thing that happens in dictatorships and totalitarian states, where people disappear overnight charged with some crime because they had expressed an opinion unpopular with the new government. 

But that isn't really happening here. No one is getting dragged off, it's just a couple of big companies not being allowed to merge because the current administration wants them to pay more taxes.

This is still wrong. They created a regulation that was specific to these two companies. Really, so if we can do that, what stops me from passing a law that says Walmart has to pay their employees $2   an hour more than everyone else pays. Why not? Is that "law", or is it "lawless". First world democracy, or third world strong-man?

We've seen this predilection toward unequal treatment before from this administration. The Waiver circus from a few years ago, when some companies were given waivers lessening the blow from ObamaCare regs, while others weren't. How were those decision made? Based on how much money those companies had given to DNC campaign coffers? If McDonalds got a waiver, did Chick-Fill-A also get one? I wonder, but the main stream media was never curious about such questions.

Obviously the IRS scandal stopping any group from getting tax free status if that group supported republicans. Another example of the flaunting of Rule of Law.  

If you can "Lookback" 3 years to force companies to pay more taxes, why not 30. That's exactly what California is doing. And 16 other states have or are pursuing related laws.

In California, the law allows the state to treat oil companies who have ever done business in California, as if they are responsible for every ill imaginable over the last 30 years. You see, there is no difference between oil companies and cigarette companies. You've probably guessed how this works. 

If 30 years ago, someone who worked for an oil company, ever said something about climate change, then that means they new about it, and sold Californians a product knowing that it would cause floods, droughts, mudslides, earthquakes (yes... I've heard people blame earthquakes on global warming). By the way, back then "Climate Change" was called "Global Cooling". See civilization was ushering in a new Ice Age back then. See: "Earth Day" circa 1970. Take phony data points from the 70's, fudge them, and cooling becomes warming. 

What all that means, according to these people, is that the oil companies owe California billions of dollars, and California is going to sue.

16 other states are planning similar strategies. 

What will actually happen is states will use kangaroo courts to shake down well run companies, and their insurance companies, for huge amounts of cash to try to make up for how poorly managed those states are. This cash would have meant jobs and taxes in states where the companies reside.

I missed the oceans rising 20 feet in the late 90's... yep that was really supposed to happen. Lately NOAA is having so much trouble getting their temperature monitoring systems based in the middle of the biggest cities in the the world to show rising temps, so they've decided they were doing it wrong and are now adding fudge factoros to the temp readings. 

This beach has seen the ocean rise 6 inches. The next beach down the ocean has risen 3 inches. Remember when we called that erosion? No one uses that word anymore.

Junk science being used to extort massive amounts of money is not new. Even in Texas, long ago, we saw the fictitious disease Chemical Aids used to extort money from chemical companies, into the pockets of lawyers. Most famously, one time VP candidate John Edwards used junk science to build a fortune off insurance companies by claiming C-sections caused babies to be delivered with brain defects.

Passing Lookback laws allowing lawyers to go back 30 years and apply junk science against what companies were doing or saying 30 years ago, and suing for that, opens a door to a tidal wave of lawsuits that makes the current legal environment look restrained. 

They can't go into the future, the Pre-Crime scenario is a tough sell. But going back in time, 3 years or 30 years, and saying we've decided after the fact that something you did or said was wrong, that truly is the inverse of Pre-Crime. Lookbacks are just as dangerous.  

The Pfizer & Allergan merger was completely legal, carefully planned out, and so to stop a company from fleeing the ultra high US corporate tax rates, the Treasury Dept decided it was okay to go back in time 3 years and stop the merger. Because you weren't big enough 3 years ago, you can't do this.

But watching California lookback 30 years and make plans to ravage and feed off of companies that are based in other states, to use courts to steal massive amounts of cash to try to fatten their own treasury at the expense of the home states of these companies, that seems to almost amount to an act of war against those states.

Pre-Crime turned out to be a (spoiler alert) corruptible system. But lookbacks start out corrupt. They are pure criminal shakedowns of companies, pretending to use science as an excuse to make criminal allegations against companies that will end up paying billions... for doing nothing wrong. Paying billions for decades of weather that had nothing to do with oil, global warming or anything else... except the sun, the moon and the earth. These lookback laws have the possibility of taking money out of well run states and transferring that money into the bottomless money pit that is California. Those states, any states with large oil companies based there, could find themselves short on taxes and services as California steals it all away.

Why stop at 30 years. Do we Lookback 100 years and figure out which companies to blame for influenza and malaria. I'm sure we can find companies to blame for World War 1 and 2. Let's Lookback 400 years and figure out which companies to blame for slavery. 

If you can Lookback 3 years, you can Lookback 30. And 100. And 400. Rule of Law would prevent all this... but we don't have governments able to see even into the next week to see how retroactive lookbacks have the potential for devastation.

  

Howard Schultz - Starbucks CHO - 8 Years Late to the Hatefest

The Chief Hypocrisy Officer of Starbucks has suddenly decided that we all need to just... get along. He is running full page ads lamenting the animosity and even hate that Americans, in his judgement, have just discovered we have for one another. He seeks to remind us that this "new" discourse, which coincidentally just started in July of 2015, is tearing us apart and even hurting people. Can't we just express our opinions without indicating any sort of disdain, critique or in anyway sliming anyone else who might hear our opinions, or worse see our name written in chalk on the sidewalk?

I'm thinking there is a 50/50 chance you already know why this is so hypocritical of Howard, but let's lay it out for everyone else. The hateful, name-calling, personal smearing, you-name-it baiting has been going on full bore for over 7 years now. No... to be fair, it's been going on for decades. But either way, the left has been smearing the right and anybody who dares to show even ambivalence to opinions held by someone on the right for a very long time.

It's been impossible to turn on MSNBC the past 7 years without viewers being called racist if you disagree with anything the current president says or believes. That's if you are white or minority, if black you get called much worse things. The previous eight years, if you agreed with anything that president said, you were flat-out stupid (oh, that hasn't stopped by the way).

Hollywood has made many movies to point out their beliefs that anyone on the right is stupid, racist, hateful, dishonest, ugly and if the character happens to be over about 45, also senile. Meanwhile, leftists in the movies are made of sugar and spice, and everything nice.

How many times has the current president jumped head first into some local issue, instantly blaming a police officer when the president heard some black person has possibly, allegedly, been victimized. Bigotry anyone? No of course not, only the right is bigoted, remember sugar and spice?

Howard, Black Lives Matters has chanted for the killing of Police. Howard? I guess he was traveling that week. Leftist organizations have paid protesters to wreak havoc on towns like Ferguson Ill. The President has admonished Christians for complaining about peoples heads being cut off in the middle east.... because of you know, the Crusades.

On college campuses nationwide, speakers known to be from the right side of the aisle are prohibited from speaking, and people who want to attend are prevented from attending. Prevented by blocking roads and entrances, physical intimidation, threats against the administrators. Prevented in other words, by force.

Not even a peep out of Howard. You see, the left believes all these hateful things about the right are true... so it's not hate speech when they say it. It's just intelligent analysis combined with snappy dialogue. Only when the Donald Trump started giving the left (and other republicans) a taste of it's own medicine did the main stream media and other democrats erupt with reports and sadness about the "rise" in hate speech lately. As in, the last 9 months.

So when Emory students discover the name "Trump" scrawled in chalk amongst the chalk scrawling's of Bernie and BLM, they erupt. They've been traumatized by the very name of He Who Shall Not Have His Name Scrawled in Chalk. Many feel sick, and need counseling. One is so misinformed about the candidate, she thinks the KKK has arrived on campus. And of course, they find a willing (and slightly terrified) college president who disavows the tagging of the Great Sata... er, the Great Donald, and vows to hunt down to the ends of the earth the infidels responsible.

Well, Howard is also erupting. He is also traumatized by the terrifying specter of left wing tactics being used on his peace loving, tolerant, bridge building, citizen of the world presidential candidate. And he has just realized we have less than 4 months away from the Republican Convention, after which Donald will train his left-wing style attack-dog politics on Howard's candidate Hillary.

It's okay for the left to spray the right with hate speech for years. Hate speech is only bad when it comes from the right, and is aimed at the left. Howard actually seems to be a good CEO, but as CHO he shows himself to be an emperor without clothes, without clue, and without shame for the hatefest that he has helped create over the years.





 

Media Water Boards Public over 180 Times!

Three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003.

Did you say three people?

On no... the number of people doesn't matter! All that matters is the number of times the people were water boarded!

Right. I'm still holding my breath waiting for an honest report on this by the American Media.... at what point does the media's treatment of me cross the line to torture?

The torture memos have been wildly misreported. Like the Cylons from Battlestar Gallactica, the media has a plan.

Wildly misreported you say? Oh yes. As in the media is not telling the truth. Pop Quiz... how many people were water boarded. Who knows??! you scream? It doesn't matter??? One is too many???? Now we are getting somewhere.

The left knows that 3 prisoners being water boarded in 8 years doesn't give us anywhere near the righteous indignation that reporting that one prisoner was water boarded 182 times. The only reason for making that number the headline, instead of the actual number of people water boarded (again, that number is 3), is if you want to trick the public into becoming angry over something that you believe wouldn't anger them if they were told the truth.

How much high grade Uranium was found in Iraq? none? go to the back of the class.

The fact is that media cover ups have changed and continue to change historical fact. Four years from now, anyone saying publicly that only three prisoners were water boarded will be publicly ridiculed. When the subject comes up in presidential debates, people who know the facts will not confront those who lie about the facts, because they will be afraid. Revisionism holds sway over the truth. That's not some Orwell novel, that's today. In these United States.

Three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003.

If you truly believe that no number of LA residents lives were worth the water boarding of three people or even a single person, then fine, you opinion is at least informed. You know that it was only three people, and you know that among other things, critical information was obtained about a 911 style attack being planned for LA.

Three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003.

On the other hand, if you read those two lines and can't believe them, because they seem so out of sync with what "must" be true, because the public furor is so intense, then you have been told what to believe. But now that you know the truth, do you choose to be free? Or do you continue to Obey the Media?

The Buck Stops There

So up until now, Obama has done pretty good with the buck stops here crowd, whoever they are. That ended with the about face on trying to prosecute Bush administration officials. Now afraid to evoke the wrath of the left, he has thrown his own Attorney General under the bus, and washed his hands of responsibility.

Originally Obama says that there will be no prosecutions. Then the torture memo's are released, wildly misreported, and Obama says there will be no prosecutions. Then the angry left catches rabies, and Obama says.... well, what I meant by not prosecuting anyone is just that "I" will not prosecute. My Attorney General might though. Smile for the camera.

Wildly misreported you say? Well yes, but I cover that in the post following this one. Suffice to say three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003. Thousands of lives in LA may have been saved.

Back to the subject at hand, allegedly, a president has never attempted prosecution of a previous president's administration. Even Nixon and Clinton's administrations were left alone, though there were plenty of prosecutions and convictions while they were both still president. This would be the first time. The question Obama needs to be asking is, will his passing of the buck open the door to many more to follow, as president after president tries to exact a share of revenge for their followers, taken out of the hide of the opposing party previously in power.

Obama's calculating enough to know this can only go so far. His public needs some red meat, so expect after a few weeks some new bone thrown to the left to get them off their current fever. Right now, according to Rasmussen, 58% of the public is unhappy with his decision to release the memo's, and you can bet that plurality is not lost on him. So the left is mad that he hasn't already started trials, and the right and center are questioning just whose side is he on. Some political acrobatics may be called for to get the left off chasing something else while at the same time putting the middle at ease that he is in fact on their side.

Add into the equation that he has, in the past, left the door open for his own administration to use harsh questioning techniques. Even though he has recast the War on Terror as a police action, Obama is not one to restrict the potential activities of his own administration. Remember that "Torture", as defined by the media, is not just water boarding. Serving bland food is also "Torture". I'm not kidding.

So chalk up two tactical errors for Obama. Letting the memos out was one. Now he has to somehow deal with the left's faux outrage, as if we just learned about water boarding for the first time, while pirouetting to assure the center that sanity will prevail. The second was turning this over to his Attorney General. So much for sanity. Many people are unaware of the Attorney General's previous statements calling Americans "cowards". Statement's he has made recently, since becoming Attorney General. The media covered that up, keeping it from blowing up in Obama's face, but this is an AG who needs to keep a low profile for awhile. Giving the AG such a high profile decision, welcomes a second chance for the AG's absurd statements to become part of the discussion.

After bending to his supporters, and then passing the buck to his AG, the next step in the ballet will be to throw a new bone to the left that doesn't offend the center so much. Then his AG will be instructed to keep mum, and see if the flames can be brought back down to a low setting. Eventually a position paper will be issued saying that water boarding is bad, but no clear violation of laws were broken, which is correct by the way, and we (they) are putting this dark period in American history behind us (ie- the saving of thousands of lives in Los Angeles).

Let the ballet begin.

No Virginia, Conservative Americans are NOT Entitled to their own opinions

What a bazaar and dishonest controversy to suddenly surface. One of the runnerup's for Miss America was given a question during the pageant about gay marriage. Her answer reflected her beliefs, which is that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the short version. Afterward, several people involved have said that the answer "cost her the crown". Not because she stammered, added dozens of nervous words that rendered her sentences incomprehensible, or even the use of the word "uh". Nope... It cost her the crown because her answer was "wrong". One judge and former Miss USA said that she should have given a politically neutral answer rather than the offensive answer. The judge who asked the question has gone public since then denouncing her by using gender specific derogatory descriptions, which no one in the news media has noticed is blatantly sexist.

The Judge's name is Perez Hilton, a celebrity blogger. A typical close minded angry liberal who takes instant and nearly violent offense at anything another American says that he disagrees with. He has openly admitted that had she won, he would have raced out on the stage and physically removed the crown from her head. When a fascist finds his beliefs challenged, violence is always an acceptable reaction. "Any means necessary". That's one of the ways you can tell the difference between fascists, and say... the rest of us.

Of course today, who can tell what people really believe. Someone takes on Miss America, or a runnerup, and the more noise they make, the more extreme they are, the more airtime they get. All though he talks like an angry liberal, he looks like one happy cherub on the Today Show. Matt Lauer takes 2-3 minutes with Hilton, but avoids asking the obvious question... in fact the only question that should have been asked: what would Hilton's reaction have been if she had answered with the equally polarizing "I support gay marriage"? Would he have been equally offended, or would he and the rest of the judges danced around the stage singing HosanaHosana.

Okay, sorry, that's Jesus Christ Superstar reference, which recently appeared on Hulu.com.

Back to the controversy, the "B-word" and "C-word" references he has given in other diatribes on TV seemed the emotional reactions of an angry hate filled person. I think he was not being that honest later on the Today Show. Matt Lauer just accepted Hilton's new Today Show persona, without confronting him. The newly politically correct Hilton says the answer should have been neutral rather than expressing her own opinion. It should have been an "inclusive" answer, making everyone feel good. Well.... that almost sounds reasonable, but I don't believe him. If that's why they ask the contestants questions, to judge how inclusive and neutral and inoffensive their answers are, well this is the first I've heard that. I really thought judges were mainly looking for complete sentences. What do I know?

Of all networks... NBC actually pulled up a clip of Barack Obama answering the same question during a debate before the election. Guess what his answer was? The same answer Miss California gave. You see, Obama is entitled to his opinion. Of course smug liberals might assume he is just saying that to get elected. Where was the outrage? The offense? Carrie Prejean is a conservative, at least in this one subject. They are not mad at her for being a conservative. They are angry because she spoke her mind aloud and her opinion differed from theirs. That kind of speech is almost dangerous to some tolerance challenged liberals.

So we have an angry liberal response, to nothing more than an opinion voiced aloud.

Cramer v. Stewart

I posted this on hulu and decided to paste it up here. I posted this as commentary on the March 12, 2009 Daily Show featuring the face off between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer.

Here is a link to the show if you haven't seen it:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/62203/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-mar-12-2009


This was dull, cramer was a treestump. He was exactly like this years ago on Bill Maher's show. When he gets confronted by someone he is a fan of, like maher or stewart, he backs way down.


Meanwhile, he's owned up over and over to the way the markets are and the power that big money has over the markets. The he goes on telling people to buy or sell with no more accuracy than anyone else. Big money moves markets. Period. Big money trumps news. That's what cramer is saying in these online videos. He made money by trumping the news with big money. That's the way markets have always worked. Read Richard Wyckoff circa 1910.


Cramer makes ironic statements in those videos on purpose, and stewart doesn't get it. why doesn't cnbc read ceo's minds? People make mistakes when they try to predict the future? Duh Jon, if that's the way your name is really spelled, what's on A&E right now?

Stewart does get:"We capitalize your adventure". Right. Now just like 100 years ago.
The only way to make money in the markets is to follow that money.


Cramer wimps out here. It could have been a lot more interesting. But stewart hasn't said anything that wasn't said on cnbc's own message boards over and over ever since they've had a web site. So what if there is a show called Fast Money. That's a debate point?


So again, this show was no big deal, anticlimactic, very disappointing on both sides, boring.