Wednesday, March 21, 2018

The Panopticon State; The Up Side?

By Thomas Lifson

A 24 year old “white male” suspect in the bombing spree afflicting Austin, Texas is dead after blowing himself up in his car while being fired upon by police. Information is still very fragmentary, but according to reports on Fox News this morning, police were led to him through the blanket surveillance capabilities that have come characterize American society in the wake of the “war on terror.”

Specifically (and keep in mind that early information in huge media events often is subject to change), the suspect was photographed dropping off two packages at a Fedex office in Austin. He was wearing a hat and wig, reportedly, so no facial identification was possible, but police were able to use cell phone tower data to identify everyone who was in the area with a cell phone turned on. Evidently, the individual in question was already on some sort of police lists, and that identified him as a strong suspect. From that point, getting to his location was inevitable. Some reports indicate police were able to trace his Google searches and identify the hotel where he was staying. But if he had the same cell phone on his person, tha coiudl ave led police to him, also.

No doubt some of this information will prove mistaken, but the underlying point remains sound. If you have a cell phone on your body with the battery in it, the police probably can know everywhere you have been and where you are now. And with the proliferation of security cameras, they can see you, and what you are wearing.

This is called the “panopticon” state that can see you everywhere. China is spending a lot of money and devoting intellectual resources to becoming the most thoroughgoing panopticon state in human history. But, if you think you are not subject to constant surveillance and keep a cell phone with you, the police can find out where you’ve been and where you are now, in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The demise of the presumptive perp in Austin is an upside of this situation. The downside has yet to be fully plumbed here, but in China it is clear that it is a foundational element of twenty-first century tyranny.

Prepare yourself for further information on the suspect’s motivation. Leftists are hoping he is some sort of rightist or racist, giving them moral bragging rights. Conservatives are hoping he is a leftist, for similar reasons. If the leftist hopes are realized, expect a huge wave of accusation leveled at everyone to the right of Lindsey Graham dominating the mainstream media. If he was a lefty, expect the mainstream media to change the subject.

Meanwhile, people in Central Texas have to still worry about other packages that may be somewhere in the delivery systems of any provider of such services.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Frameup Debunked

By Paul Craig Roberts

[Former] British Ambassador [to Uzbekistan] Craig Murray has successfully exposed the deception practiced by the utter corrupt British government in its false allegation that the Russian government used a nerve agent to poison two people on a bench in England. The British government’s scientists have far more integrity than the British government and flatly refused to sanction the government’s claim about the nerve agent. This forced the corrupt May government to use the wording “of a type developed by Russia.”

Amb. Murray goes on to establish that there is no evidence that Russia ever developed such a nerve agent and that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) found no such agent when it oversaw and verified Russia’s destruction of Russian chemical weapons.

Amb. Murray reports that the only known synthesis of what is being called “Novichok” occurred in 2016 by Iran in cooperation with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in order to test whether formulas published in a book many years ago could actually produce such an agent.

Amb. Murray exposes the utterly corrupt presstitutes that comprise the Western media for never once asking the corrupt UK government about its hedge words, “of a type developed by Russia” and for their efforts to silence him with libel and slander.

As important as Amb. Murray’s factually uncontested findings are, the main point is that no laboratory has reported any finding that such a nerve agent was used on Skirpal and his daughter. We don’t even know if any attack occurred on Skirpal. The corrupt British government has provided no evidence of any attack and no evidence of any nerve agent.
What is the real reason for the British government’s completely obvious blatant lies?

What is the real reason for the complete failure of the media to investigate and report an alleged event?

How much more evidence does the world need that the Western media is nothing but a collection of liars devoid of all integrity who serve as a Propaganda Ministry for undeclared government agendas? The Skirpal Affair is the final nail in the coffin of the Western media.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Worthless Notes: Comey, Rice and McCabe


Comey writes up notes of meetings with Trump. It’s a blatant attempt to get Trump on a charge of obstructing justice. Comey’s behavior has been despicable during the entire election and afterward, start to finish. James Comey is a worm. His notes of meetings have no value.

Susan Rice sends herself an e-mail about a meeting with Obama and others. One reason for the meeting appears to be to keep information out of the hands of the Trump team. “The meeting, which also included then Vice President Joe Biden as well as former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, reportedly covered the topic of what information about the Russia investigation could be shared with Trump’s transition team.”

The whole scenario smells. They all know what they say and do may come back to haunt them, being recorded or recollected in some fashion, so they all bend over backwards to speak and write in ways to cover themselves. Susan Rice is a liar. She cannot clear her record and protect Obama by sending herself an e-mail.

Andrew McCabe writes notes of meetings with Trump and hands them over to Mueller. When did McCabe provide Mueller with his notes? If it is after being fired, which is apparently the case, this reflects badly upon their objectivity and his ethics. McCabe lied under oath, according to Sessions, relying on the FBI’s own Office of Professional Responsibility: “The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, ‘all FBI employees know that lacking candor [i.e. lying] under oath results in dismissal [or jail time for ordinary citizens] and that our integrity is our brand.'”

All these kinds of communications are worthless unless they can be verified by recordings or perhaps other witnesses. The word of a single witness is subject to too much subjectivity, error and bias to be taken at face value. In these cases, there is already evidence of anti-Trump animus and efforts, which make any such documents subject to suspicion of being self-serving and slanted.

If in any of these cases, the writer thought that other people at a meeting were doing something criminal, why would they not have taken action right away? Why write down an account and store it away? All these kinds of documents are worthless.

Mueller is out to get Trump. He’s collecting this kind of trash, the aim being to make out a case for high crimes and misdemeanors of Trump. He already has enough material to construct a persuasive-sounding brief (“a written legal document used in various legal adversarial systems that is presented to a court arguing why one party to a particular case should prevail.”) He has plenty of skilled lawyers who can pull together all the many charges and criticisms made against Trump and present a case that sounds absolutely impregnable and devastating. He can surely find some further ones having to do with Trump’s business dealings. This “case” will be a house of straw, however, lacking firm foundations, but built nonetheless for its political value in persuading voters to back the Trump opposition.

The whole Mueller product is and will be an exercise in self-reference developed by the members of the anti-Trump team. People like Joseph Brennan, who now has called Trump a “demagogue” will be cited as if they provided independent and objective evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing, when all they have is their own personal hatred of the man. Hatred and vilification expressed by any number of people unhappy with Trump is a “case” that’s going to fall apart and ensnare its perpetrators in their own web. Brennan, for example, may face the prospect of perjury charges.
Mueller will buttress his “case” with testimony of smaller fry whom he has turned by threats of jail terms for various infractions. As in the cases of Comey, Rice and McCabe, what they suggest is hardly likely to be believable.

The entire anti-Trump apparatus, the coup against him in all its aspects including its extreme left-wing vituperation, is one big Echo Chamber in which accusations are repeated endlessly that have no bearing on Trump’s actual policies and actions. Trump’s personal life is as irrelevant to his administration as were those of JFK and LBJ. The adjectives applied to him like xenophobic, misogynist, racist, unstable, narcissist, senile, moronic, and on and on count only for being dirty and low attacks, bile and political low-blows, the result of having lost an election (Democrats), having lost control over a political party (Republicans), and facing prospects of disliked changes in policies (Deep State).

Trump is quite likely to win this game for two reasons. His opponents have no substance to their charges against him, and many of them have themselves abused their offices and worse. The inspector general at the Department of Justice is investigating further: “We’re now waiting for the inspector general’s report, Michael Horowitz report. It’s not just going to be one. It’s going to be multiple series of reports. The 1.2 million documents that he’s obtained. We’re going to learn a lot more than just what happened here with Andrew McCabe. We’re going to learn about Comey and that investigation. It’s going to be absolutely explosive according to the sources that I’ve spoken with.”

There are links among several scandals that remain to be fully investigated and brought out into the open: the DNC e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, the Russia-gate dossier, the FISA warrants, the death of Seth Rich, Obama’s treatment of intelligence, and Comey’s and McCabe’s decisions on Hillary Clinton.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Saturday, March 17, 2018

What Could Go Wrong With a Bridge Built By...

Click on graphics to enlarge


Ongoing Middle Eastern Clusterf#*k

Syria By Senator Rand Paul (R KY)

The neocons loudly announced [in 2016] that regime change in Syria was their goal. Yet, even Hillary Clinton realized the problem when our arms, as well as Saudi and Qatari arms, were getting delivered in the hands of ISIS. In one of the Wikileaks emails, Hillary warned Podesta: “the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia . . . are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIS and other radical groups in the region.”

And yet, the deliveries of Western arms to jihadists went on and on for years.

Despite the evidence that many of the fighters opposing Assad were jihadists with an equal hatred for Israel and the United States, the weapons kept flowing.

Remember their call to arm the “moderate fighters?” Who can forget the $260 million spent to train [count 'em] sixty fighters, ten of whom were captured only minutes after they were sent into battle.

The neocons vociferously argued that Assad must go. Senators McCain and Graham argued that you couldn’t defeat ISIS without also defeating Assad. John Bolton went so far as to pontificate that "defeating the Islamic State" is "neither feasible nor desirable" if Assad remains in power. Actually, the opposite was true. Only when the mission changed from removing Assad to attacking ISIS did the tide finally turn. [With most of the heavy lifting courtesy of the Russians]

Max Abrahms and John Glaser wrote in the LA Times late last year that contrary to neocon dogma, ISIS “imploded right after external support for the ‘moderate’ rebels dried up.”

So, the neocons who argued that ISIS couldn’t or shouldn’t be defeated without first defeating Assad were wrong again.

In the 2016 presidential primary two candidates — myself and Donald Trump — declared that the Iraq War was a mistake, that we should not arm our enemies and that America didn’t have a dog in every fight.

I campaigned against the folly of recent neocon wars, the futility of nation building, and the bankruptcy, moral and literal, of the idea of policing the world. So did Donald Trump — for the most part.

So where do we go from here? Congress is still dominated by neocons. The Trump administration shows no sign of ending the Afghan war. If anything, President Trump has doubled down on our support for Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni civil war. Candidate Trump, who consistently voiced his displeasure with the Iraq War, has surrounded himself with generals still intent on finding military solutions where none exist.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Friday, March 16, 2018

Thunder Mug Tempest

By Tom Woods Phd

Ever since the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, social media has been even more toxic than usual.

The gun-control side has in general been content to attribute vile motives to their opponents, and to contend that people arguing for gun rights prefer guns over their own children.

Their reaction has made the debate over the 73 genders seem downright civil.

Obviously, no progress can be made in our understanding when one side is so hysterical. Their side seems incapable even of conceiving of a rational argument we might make.

This is standard fare for progressives, in my experience. We know their positions inside and out, but they seem genuinely baffled by and altogether ignorant of what libertarians and conservatives believe. (In fact, Jonathan Haidt ran studies on this very question, and found progressives consistently do a much worse job explaining their opponents' views than vice versa.)

It is especially rich that progressives should posture and preen as though they hold the moral high ground, when in fact they consistently reject all practical responses to school shootings,
including improvements in school security, in favor of pie-in-the-sky political solutions that have no chance of passage much less implementation. The best way to respond?

[With the extended middle digit.]

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

The Lynch Mob Cometh

By Karen DeCoster

Watching a bunch of screeching, emoting, Oprahfied women argue for gun control on Facebook and take on dissenters is like watching a 16-year-old driver’s training student drive the wrong way on a freeway and take on oncoming traffic. The predictability of their uninformed, meaningless arguments (“no one needs an assault weapon to defend their home!”; “we have to make guns harder to get!”; “the 2nd Amendment needs to evolve!”; “it’s for the children!”) is frightening because we know that such behavior serves to advance that mentality amongst the ignorant female collective as they infiltrate and inspire the minds of other women with their factless fluff and emotional outpourings.

A collective circle of ignorance regurgitating and spreading folly in a shared pool leads to a tyranny of the masses.

The individual tyrant mindsets that make up the collective mass are necessarily the result of democracy. Weaned on the teats of the State, these individuals are imbued with the “democratic” philosophy that government is there to provide for their endeavors, even if it means having the State aggress against others to relieve them of life’s little uncertainties and risks. Democracy gives them a say-so in the political process, a process where coercive powers are exercised at will via majority rule. Once the nipples of democracy have been exposed to the piglets gathering round the hub of majority rule, we engender a perpetual breeding process of decadent usurpation by the masses over the few.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Latest Horror in South Africa Should Prompt WHITE Refugee Admissions

By Hugh McInnish

I have read, as I’m sure you have, of the tyranny in South Africa. Pushing hard the limits of credulity, the black government is moving to confiscate the land owned by every white owner—and redistribute it to the black people of the country.

As Zimbabwe is our model, we know what will happen. Chaos will follow, whites will be terrorized, and some even murdered. Further, the many white farmers who have made their country a super-productive agricultural gem shining brightly in darkest Africa, will likely look for a new, more free country to which they may immigrate.

I suggest that we provide a haven for these poor souls. Indeed, I hope we will do more than just say, “you may come here if you wish.” We should vigorously urge them to come. We should pursue them with the dedication we show when we are trying to land a lucrative new manufacturing facility. Why am I saying this? Let me tell you–the white South Africans are a fine folk.

Do you remember Dr. Christiaan Barnard? He was the South African doctor who performed the first heart transplant. I have met in this country others from that country. I can recall a female oncologist who had fled her country under a pall of fear, and was practicing her profession here: also, a sky-diving instructor; a young male golfer whom my wife and I housed during a visit. All were exemplary people.

There are still others that I might add: The wife of a writer for the New York Times is one, and a whole family that a former teacher tells about. She had one of the children in this family in one of her cases, and she speaks highly of them.

In my judgement, people such as these, in stark contrast to the bulk of our recent emigres, would enrich our country. They speak English, they are industrious and intelligent, and they, as we, value the Judeo-Christian Western tradition.

Finally, they have suffered under hyper-political correctness, and should be virtually immune to its false maxims. They would partially offset the flood of less desirable others flooding our shores. They might be the transfusion of new blood that we need, and that would help to Make America Great Again.

Let’s go for them!

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Friday, March 09, 2018

Justice Delayed

By Bob Unruh

 A former U.S. Navy sailor who was sentenced to prison for taking pictures inside a submarine – an offense likened to “nothing” compared to the scandal of Hillary Clinton sending classified material over an unsecure email network, has been pardoned.

According to a report in the Washington Examiner, President Donald Trump issued the pardon Friday for Kristian Saucier.

The report said Saucier was driving a garbage truck at the time he learned of the pardon, the “only job he could find with a felony conviction.”
Trump had cited Saucier’s predicament several times while he was running for president, saying the sailor was “ruined” for doing “nothing” compared to Hillary Clinton.

Saucier was released from his one-year term in September and was living with his family, wife Sadie and a 2-year-old daughter, in Vermont.
He was 22 when he took cellphone photos in 2009, and he pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized possession and retention of national defense information. His lawyers argued to the court he should get the same deal that Hillary Clinton got for being “extremely careless” with national security secrets, which essentially was nothing.

The images he had were “confidential,” which is the lowest level of classification.

His wife told the Examiner, “When Kris gets home from work, when he gets to the door, I’m going to be a little emotional. I can’t believe it happened, I don’t think it’s set in yet.”

In an interview that came when he got out of prison, Saucier expressed frustration at the two levels of justice, one for Hillary Clinton and one for common people.

“I was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for what’s called unlawful retention of national defense information. Basically, I possessed classified documents or images on an unsecured device, so exactly what Hillary Clinton did, but she didn’t get prosecuted because they said she didn’t have intent to cause national harm,” said Saucier.

“That’s not a prerequisite for the charge. So I was prosecuted with no intent to cause national harm. It was very clear to them that I had no intent. I was just taking these pictures as mementos, and it didn’t matter. They still prosecuted me, and I was facing possibly 10 years in prison,” said Saucier.

He says the takeaway for him and his family is obvious. The powerful are held to a different standard.

“They protect their own, so higher ups in our government are protecting each other. It’s the same with Gen. (David) Petraeus, who lied to the FBI and tried to spread disinformation. He was head of the CIA,” said Saucier.
“They’re protecting him. They’re protecting Hillary Clinton, and they’re protecting all the people that are in their little clique right there. Whenever it comes to an honest American citizen, they just go right after you,” said Saucier.

“If they can do this to somebody like me, who is a patriotic, honest American citizen who wanted nothing but to serve his country, and then looked the other way when people like Huma Abedin, John Podesta and Hillary Clinton break the same exact law to a far more egregious standpoint and nothing happens to them, it’s very upsetting,” he said.
During his campaign Trump suggested prosecuting Hillary Clinton, but later dropped the topic.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Lying Gun Grabbers

By Benjamin Arie

It happens every time there’s talk of gun control laws: The left predictably scoffs at gun owners, calling them paranoid for not trusting the state.
“Nobody wants to confiscate your guns,” liberals assure the rest of America. “Stop exaggerating.”

Flash forward to Thursday. Lawmakers in Democrat-controlled Illinois have passed a bill to — you guessed it — confiscate currently legal firearms from gun owners. So much for being paranoid.

According to Breitbart News, HB 1465 has moved to the state Senate after being passed in the House a week ago. The measure would require citizens between the ages of 18 and 20 to give up ownership of certain guns that they bought legally, or risk becoming seen as criminals.

“The guns and magazines remain legal for persons 21 and up, but persons under 21 would have 90 days to give up ownership,” Breitbart explained.
“The NRA-ILA described the weapons covered by HB 1465 as ‘commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms,'” continued that news outlet. “The bill also requires 18-20-year-olds to forfeit ownership of any magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.”

Semi-automatic rifles, contrary to the portrait painted by the mainstream media, are neither especially exotic or rare. They are actually the most common type of modern firearm owned by law-abiding citizens today, used for sport, hunting and personal defense. At the same time, rifles are used incredibly rarely in actual crimes.

The wording of the bill also made it possible for the government to confiscate handguns, depending on how the definitions are interpreted. Lawmakers outlawed semi-auto pistols for residents under age 21 if the handgun has a “shroud that partially encircles the barrel.” The slide of every modern handgun could meet this definition.

Of course, lawmakers who voted for the legislation offered empty promises that law enforcement would not visit homes to collect the guns. Instead, people who are found with the prohibited firearms would be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor on the first offense.

Penalties would increase for citizens who continue refusing to comply with the law. Those promises are no doubt being taken with a grain of salt by Illinois residents, considering that the same legislators promised that nobody would be confiscating legal firearms to begin with.

The bill must still pass the state Senate to become a law, but it has already picked up support in that chamber. There are currently 37 Democrats in the Illinois Senate, versus 22 Republicans. The state’s governor is a Republican, but his willingness to veto the bill is unclear.

There are a few key points to take away from this development. First, the assurances of liberals that “nobody wants to confiscate your guns” should be dismissed immediately. The evidence doesn’t lie. One look at both the state and federal level shows Democrats lining up to do exactly that, yet the left seems to think that nobody has noticed.

Second, these types of “backdoor bans” are exactly the tactics that Second Amendment supporters need to watch. Gun grabbers know that even on their best day, they cannot pass a blanket ban on firearms in the United States.

Like a ratchet that is tightened one click at a time, Democrats are trying to dismantle gun ownership gradually. It will start with 20-year-old citizens. “Nobody under 21 needs a gun,” they’ll insist, essentially saying that young women, new families, and people old enough to fight in Iraq don’t have a right to self defense.

The line will slowly be moved. One category of citizen at a time, gun rights will be eroded… not in one major sweep, but in a series of “reasonable” laws that happen to be tearing up the Constitution one shred at a time.

Anyone who supports the right to self defense and the Second Amendment needs to speak out. The left may think that they are finally winning, but have a long track record of underestimating actual Americans.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Thursday, March 08, 2018

Re: Nullification

I've been spending this week in New York City with my daughter Veronica, so I've taken time off from writing.

But man, that Jeff Sessions.

Just the other day, he said:

There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is "the supreme law of the land." I would invite any doubters to go to Gettysburg, to the tombstones of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln. This matter has been settled.

As the author of Nullification, I am driven insane by fact-free platitudes like this.

(Nullification is the idea that the states have the right to prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws.)

Let's be clear: Sessions is making precisely the argument that every left-liberal outfit on earth, from ThinkProgress to the Southern Poverty Law Center, was making not ten years ago, when the modern nullification movement was getting started.

All we heard was: Supremacy Clause! John C. Calhoun! Civil War!

Regarding Calhoun, I'm convinced the reason they mention him is (1) most Americans have no idea who he is, and (2) he's been sufficiently demonized in the minds of those who have, that anything he's associated with becomes automatically suspect.

They never used Thomas Jefferson's name, even though the first full-fledged articulation of the idea of nullification, including the very word itself, came from his pen. (Why they wouldn't want to associate Thomas Jefferson's name with an idea they seek to demonize is an exercise I leave to the student.)

On the Civil War: the Civil War was not fought over nullification, and in fact at the time of the war it was the northern states that had much more recently been engaged in nullification. The legitimacy of nullification involves a philosophical argument, and philosophical arguments are not – at least to reasonable people – decided one way or the other by violence. No one would say, when confronted with the plight of the Plains Indians, “Didn’t the U.S. Army settle that?”

As for the Supremacy Clause, that and a lot more are covered in my nullification FAQ (where you'll also find a link to get a free audiobook version of Nullification, which made the thought controllers go even crazier than they already were):

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Surprise! Surprise!

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Sunday, March 04, 2018

Moron Gun Control: Women and Children First

By Doug Lynn

In the aftermath of the Sandyhook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama issued 23 executive actions and proposed 19 legislative actions.  After the Virginia Tech shooting new rules were passed that allowed the Social Security Administration to provide information to the gun background check system of people with “mental disabilities”. After Vegas and Parkland, it was bump-stocks.  Now, most recently at the time of this writing, it appears that even President Trump has “stunned lawmakers” with his “seeming embrace of gun control measures”.

Do you see a pattern?

To understand the borg mind, you must first understand the politicians and powerbrokers are fully aware of what they are doing.  But, as far as the liberal snowflakes are concerned, they ALWAYS believe what they WISH to be true; facts be damned.  Worse than that, they will not let go of what they wish were true even after they long cross the rubicon into devastating lunacy.  By then, it becomes like a Chinese finger trap; the more you challenge their beliefs, the more they hold on.

Here are 10 truths the gun control morons hold to be self-evident:

 1.) The Gun is Guilty
How can some people assign culpability to a mere tool you ask?  It’s a fair question.  Those who hate guns believe evil should be confronted through the elimination of its occasional means; a device, or gadget. This is not overly unlike someone dieting to lose weight by removing the silverware from their kitchen.

Actually, it is in fact worse.  To protect the children from bodily harm, Big Mother desires to remove the allegorical silverware from the homes of metaphorical healthy eaters.

That’s insane.

From an ideological perspective, could that faulty logic eliminate profanity by stealing the adult books from those who don’t curse? Or prevent procrastination by purloining people’s calendars and clocks? Indeed, just as instruments to measure time illustrate the denotation and solution for procrastination and tardiness, so do guns, simultaneously, demonstrate the denotation and solution for evil.

Some women, some children, and most liberals, can’t seem to identify evil through the fog of their good intentions.  This explains why they fail to see the irony when they call for people with guns to come save them from people with guns.  Except, for whatever reason, they profess to favor those traveling from a distance away to save them as opposed to someone in their immediate proximity.

Indeed, why do gun control advocates prefer those with badges, 20 minutes away, over those with a permit who could save their lives, and the lives of others, in that very moment?

Perhaps, because logic is not a strong suit in the minds of some women, some children, and most liberals.

2.) Criminals Obey Laws

Wrong. In every mass shooting event in recent years, there were laws on the books designed to prevent the murder and mayhem.  Think about that. Criminals care nothing for laws; neither will they be inhibited by them.  If laws eliminated all access to acquiring guns legally, it would not stop criminals from getting them any more than the war on drugs terminated illegal drug use in America.  Naturally, laws are only as effective as their enforcement; which, in the case of the Parkland shooting and all others, was far less than stellar to say the least; let alone prohibitive. Sure, seat belt laws may save the lives of compliant citizens in car accidents, but no law can prevent deliberate, calculated murder. Evil finds a way.

3.) Citizens and Criminals are Synonymous

You’ve likely heard the saying:  “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  Yet, in the eyes of the gun control advocates, there is no difference between the two.  This explains why an effort has been undertaken nationwide to criminalize the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its members, for the crimes of one crazy child from Parkland, Florida.  For now, though, this profound miscalculation by the Political Left has backfired.  Pardon the pun.

 4.) Rights Derive from Emotions

Actually, they don’t. Why must law-abiding citizens yield to the emotionalism of traumatized children, politicized law enforcement officers, and liberal snowflakes?  It seems they expect upright citizens to obey new rules designed to infringe upon the unalienable rights of others.  Why not just say “no” and ignore them?

Pure, unbridled emotionalism, like what was witnessed during the CNN Townhall rally after the Parkland shooting, was entirely unrelated to the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Notwithstanding, the First Amendment allowed the CNN rally to occur.

5.) Consequential Correlating Factors are Irrelevant

Some women, certain children, corrupt Broward county sheriffs, and most liberal snowflakes today willfully employ convenient tunnel-vision in order to unjustifiably convict firearms for murder.  In so doing, they maliciously downplay any other contributing factors behind every mass shooting.  These would include mental illness, the side-effects of psychotropic drugs, law enforcement failures, bullying, and family neglect.

But more than that, what about the supplemental influences from violent Hollywood movies and video games?  Think about that.  Why do companies pay millions of dollars to entertainers and athletes to endorse their products? Because advertising works.  But now we are expected to believe that violence in movies and video games cause no adverse effects on children?

Why are all of these considerations summarily dismissed by the Political Left in the national conversation on guns? Why is the blame always solely placed onto the gadget by those favoring gun control?  Why do they push for more laws when the FBI and local law enforcement agencies appear completely helpless to prevent the mass shootings from occurring in the first place?

Good questions.

6.) Gun Free Zones are Safe
The Political Left believes in the infallibility of gun free zones so much, they now hope to take the program national.  Unsurprisingly, the facts show gun free zones not safe. Quite the contrary.  According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, gun free zones have been targeted in 98% of all mass shootings since 1950.

This, in spite of politicians legislating to keep the children safe:

 Former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) to the U.S. Senate in 1990, and it was signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush, a Republican. The act was clearly proposed with the intent to prevent mass shootings at such precious areas as schools. But the act, as the statistic proves, did not result in the desired outcome.

 Thanks for nothing, Joe and George.  Again, I want my money back.

Evidently gun control doesn’t work but now the politicians have it all figured out?  No thanks. I’ll pass.  I’d rather put my faith in Santa Claus to bring me presents this Christmas, Robert Mueller to deliver justice to the highest offices of American Government, or Bill Clinton and his best friend, Jeffrey Epstein, to take our local girl scout troupe on a field trip to the Virgin Islands.

7.) Defense is Never a Good Offense

Those advocating for escalating gun control measures first mandate gun free zones, then, after the carnage, they double-down by fighting against the rights of trained teachers protecting themselves, and their students, from being sitting ducks.


Again, as stated heretofore, why do the gun control advocates favor those with badges 20 minutes away over someone with a permit who could save their lives, and the lives of others, in the moment?

Paradoxically, gun control advocates, gush over new laws to screen out potential shooters, yet they overwhelmingly distrust the laws designed to screen law-abiding concealed-carry permit holders?


Yet we are to believe it is the NRA who has blood on their hands? PUH-leese. Do these people think law-abiding citizens who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are stupid?


8.) First Responders Are Never Late and Always Competent

See # 7 above.  How many lives were lost in accordance to these false premises by so many “well-intentioned” women, children, liberal snowflakes, and bumbling law enforcement cowards?

Before answering, you may need to grab your calculator.

It seems, within the insane hive-mind of the Collective Left, only some lives matter.

 9.) Victimized Teenagers are Superb Societal Strategists

In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting, the Clinton News Network (CNN) Devolved Into A North Korean Kangaroo Court Peddling Gun Confiscation.  During that embarrassing event, the children, and their handlers, shouted down anyone who sought to challenge their faulty premises.  They did so because the handlers, like overbearing and manipulative mothers, told the children not to tolerate dissent because they were the survivors of a terrible massacre and their “March for Our Lives” movement was not political.  No, this movement is not political even though they held a February rally at the Florida Statehouse in Tallahassee on their way to march on Washington DC later this month.

It really is amazing.  Just a few short weeks ago, America’s teens were suffering from purposely consuming laundry detergent. Now, within a matter of days, they are politically organized in ways that make Martin Luther King, Jr. look like a piker in comparison.

Regarding the CNN Townhall rally, I read a blog comment that said “CNN treated those kids the way Bill Clinton treated Monica Lewinsky.”  Someday, these children might realize how they were played like an aspiring Hollywood starlet in Harvey Weinstein’s hotel suite.

 10.) Government is Good

And now, the grandest, most astonishing, erroneous, supposition of all:  Militias are so yesteryear.

In the days following the Parkland Florida shooting, Jim Quinn, the administrator of, commented on a correlating thread there:

 This week’s gun control argument in a nutshell: because government failed at every level, you need to have your rights curtailed…by the government that just failed at every level.

 Indeed, what a great summary. One of the lies ceaselessly promulgated by the Radical Left is that governments are always good. Unfortunately, federal employees, welfare recipients, some survivors of mass casualty events, certain women and children, as well as politicians, pundits, and voters on both sides of the political aisle, appear to have zero immunity against that false assumption.

What short memories they have.

Read the entire article

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Saturday, March 03, 2018

The "Blood Dance" of the "Progressives"

By Brent Bozell

The school shooting in Parkland, Florida, shows how quickly our media elites move horrors from tragedy to political opportunity. They amplified the loudest voices of the shooting aftermath: teenage survivors who demanded gun control "solutions" like banning all semi-automatic assault weapons. These teenagers might accomplish in one week what the anti-Second Amendment crowd, led by these same media elites, has failed to do for decades.

Survivors of failed abortions (like Gianna Jessen or Melissa Ohden) have never held their attention for five seconds. That conflicts with the narrative.

Liberal journalists have openly discussed how these teenage advocates could be a crucial factor in defeating the gun-rights lobby. They could become the key to the kind of turnout necessary for putting Democrats in the majority in Congress. So they gave them every opportunity to push for liberal victory without any need to be civil.

David Hogg, the most prominent student survivor, went on CNN and proclaimed politicians shouldn't take money from the National Rifle Association because they are "child murderers." CNN morning anchor Alisyn Camerota didn't correct him -- or condemn his statement, regardless of the fact that he'd just stained the reputations of millions of NRA members by labeling them killers. She said nothing. She was satisfied -- pleased, in fact. happily posted the clip with the headline "Shooting Survivor Calls NRA 'Child Murderers.'"

CNN's motto is "Facts First."

CNN hosted a "town hall" full of leftist rage against anyone who believes in Second Amendment rights. Their agenda was obvious from the program's title: "Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action." They used the hashtag #StudentsStandUp to promote it. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch were verbally slashed by the students without mercy.

Survivor Cameron Kasky stood a few feet from Rubio and smeared him on national television: "it's hard to look at you and not look down the barrel of an AR-15 and not look at [the Parkland shooter], but the point is you're here, and there are some people who are not." Kasky also said he wished he could have questioned "the NRA lady" (Loesch), since he "would ask her how she can look in the mirror, considering the fact she has children, but, you know, maybe she avoids those."

In the next hour, when Loesch was on, people in the audience shouted "murderer," and "burn her," and student survivor Emma Gonzalez lectured her that she would be a better mother: "Dana Loesch, I want you to know that we will support your two children in the way that ... you will not."

Moderator Jake Tapper allowed the audience to be as immoderate as it wanted. He tweeted afterward: "People freestyled a bit" -- a bit? -- "and I wasn't inclined to reprimand a school shooting survivor or parent who lost a child for expressing him or herself in a question -- even if aggressively."
But this is the most amazing part. In the aftermath, no one in television "news" replayed the students' rudeness as a storyline worthy of condemnation, or even comment. It matched their own political agenda and emotional temperature. When Rep. Joe Wilson yelled, "You lie!" at then-President Obama in 2009, these networks all angrily replayed it ad infinitum as a national disgrace. They called it "infamous." CNN's headline on the video clip read "The Heckling Heard 'Round the World."

Even Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shaking his head at the 2010 State of the Union was projected as inappropriate.

Remember these student hecklers when CNN and their colleagues decry how President Donald Trump has single-handedly ruined civil discourse. Trump mocking CNN as "fake news" caused far more media outrage than Hogg calling the NRA "child murderers."

It will happen again and again. They are hell-bent on ridding this country of the Second Amendment, one tragedy at a time.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Thursday, March 01, 2018

In Defense of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

By Judge Andrew Napolitano

The Ash Wednesday massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, seems to have broken more hearts than similar tragedies that preceded it. It was no more senseless than other American school shootings, but there is something about the innocence and bravery and eloquence of the youthful survivors that has touched the souls of Americans deeply.

After burying their dead, the survivors have mobilized into a mighty political force that loosely seeks more laws to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The young people, traumatized and terrified with memories of unspeakable horror that will not fade, somehow think that a person bent on murder will obey gun laws.

Every time I watch these beautiful young people, I wince, because in their understandable sadness is the potential for madness — “madness” being defined as the passionate and stubborn refusal to accept reason. This often happens after tragedy. After watching the government railroad Abraham Lincoln’s killer’s conspirators — and even some folks who had nothing to do with the assassination — the poet Herman Melville wrote: “Beware the People weeping. When they bare the iron hand.”

It is nearly impossible to argue rationally with tears and pain, which is why we all need to take a step back from this tragedy before legally addressing its causes.

If you believe in an all-knowing, all-loving God as I do, then you accept the concept of natural rights. These are the claims and privileges that are attached to humanity as God’s gifts. If you do not accept the existence of a Supreme Being, you can still accept the concept of natural rights, as it is obvious that humans are the superior rational beings on earth. Our exercise of reason draws us all to the exercise of freedoms, and we can do this independent of the government. Stated differently, both the theist and the atheist can accept the concept of natural human rights.

Thomas Jefferson, who claimed to be neither theist nor atheist, wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Such rights cannot be separated from us, as they are integral to our humanity. Foremost among our unalienable rights is the right to life — the right to be and to remain alive.

And that right implies the right to defend life — the right to self-defense. If I am about to assault you in the nose, you can duck, run away or punch me first. If I am about to strike your children, you can strike me first. If I am about to do either of those things with a gun, you can shoot me first, and no reasonable jury will convict you. In fact, no reasonable prosecutor will charge you.

The reason for all this is natural. It is natural to defend yourself — your life — and your children. The Framers recognized this right when they ratified the Second Amendment. They wrote it to ensure that all governments would respect the right to keep and bear arms as a natural extension of the right to self-defense.

In its two most recent interpretations of the right to self-defense, the Supreme Court characterized that right as “pre-political.” That means the right pre-existed the government. If it pre-existed the government, it must come from our human nature. I once asked Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority’s opinion in the first of those cases, called the District of Columbia v. Heller, why he used the term “pre-political” instead of “natural.” He replied, “You and I know they mean the same thing, but ‘natural’ sounds too Catholic, and I am interpreting the Constitution, not Aquinas.”

With the Heller case, the court went on to characterize this pre-political right as an individual and personal one. It also recognized that the people who wrote the Second Amendment had just fought a war against a king and his army — a war that they surely would have lost had they not kept and carried arms that were equal to or better than what the British army had.

They didn’t write the Second Amendment to protect the right to shoot deer; they wrote it to protect the right to self-defense — whether against bad guys, crazy people or a tyrannical government bent on destroying personal liberty.

In Heller, the court also articulated that the right to use guns means the right to use guns that are at the same level of sophistication as the guns your potential adversary might have, whether that adversary be a bad guy, a crazy person or a soldier of a tyrannical government.

But even after Heller, governments have found ways to infringe on the right to self-defense. Government does not like competition. Essentially, government is the entity among us that monopolizes force. The more force it monopolizes the more power it has. So it has enacted, in the name of safety, the least safe places on earth — gun-free zones. The nightclub in Orlando, the government offices in San Bernardino, the schools in Columbine, Newtown and Parkland were all killing zones because the government prohibited guns there and the killers knew this.

We all need to face a painful fact of life: The police make mistakes like the rest of us and simply cannot be everywhere when we need them. When government fails to recognize this and it disarms us in selected zones, we become helpless before our enemies.

But it could be worse. One of my Fox News colleagues asked me on-air the other day: Suppose we confiscated all guns; wouldn’t that keep us safe? I replied that we’d need to start with the government’s guns. Oh, no, he said. He just meant confiscation among the civilian population. I replied that then we wouldn’t be a civilian population any longer. We’d be a nation of sheep.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

Posted with emphasis added by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

ht Lew Rockwell

Russian PIKERS! Only 13 of them?

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

"First Responder" Citizen Ends Deadly Assault


There was blood “everywhere” in the hallway of an apartment building in Oswego, Illinois, as a man allegedly attacked a victim with a knife on Monday.

Dave Thomas witnessed the attack unfolding and knew he had to do something.

“I poked my head out the door. There was a pool of blood, blood was everywhere in the hall. There was still a confrontation going on, there were about three or four people involved at this point,” he recalled to WGN 9.

Thomas said he ran back to his home and grabbed his AR-15 rifle. Moments later, he was ordering the knife-wielding attacker to stop.
And he did.

“I grabbed the AR-15 over my handgun — bigger gun, I think a little more of an intimidation factor. Definitely played a part in him actually stopping,” Thomas added.

The suspect fled the scene but was eventually apprehended and arrested. The stabbing victim was reportedly taken to a hospital.

Thomas, a law-abiding gun owner with a concealed carry permit, said after the incident that the AR-15 is his “weapon of choice for home protection.”

“It's light, it's maneuverable. If you train and know how to use it properly, it's not dangerous,” he continued. "And this is just a perfect example of good guy with an AR-15 stopped a bad guy with a knife. And there were no lives taken, so, all in all, it was a good day.”

The incident comes amid a fiery debate over semi-automatic rifles in the wake of the Parkland high school shooting that left 17 people dead. Gun control advocates are currently making a strong push to ban rifles like the AR-15.

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Slave or Citizen?

By Jim Campbell

The vast majority of people seem confused about violence on both practical and idealogical grounds.

Practically, it is impossible to remove the *ability* for human beings to inflict harm upon one another. Deprived of a rifle, a human intending harm will simply find other means: a knife, a pipe, a pressure cooker, a truck, acid, even sticks and stones, and, if necessary, fists and feet.
This is an unfortunate, yet undeniable fact of the universe. Humans can be incredibly creative in their efforts to harm each other.

The one thing that seems to give predatory humans pause is the possibility of defense in the form of violent counterattack. Everywhere in the Animal Kingdom, predation occurs primarily on the weak and defenseless. Only a desperate predator will risk attack on a strong target that can defend itself. Humans are no different.

Most people supporting “gun control” measures, and now “knife control” measures in the UK, are living in childish denial of this basic reality of the human condition. (A smaller group are not in denial of anything, but seek to turn the population into defenseless subjects.)

Before discussing the solution, an important clarification is necessary:
Not all violence is morally equal or even practically unacceptable.

The kind of violence that should be of concern to decent people is called AGGRESSION. Aggression is violence directed toward an innocent person who is minding their own business. Defensive violence is not a problem. In fact, even those who most staunchly oppose people’s right to arm themselves accept that defensive violence is required to deal with aggression. These people simply believe that defensive violence should only be allowed by a small group of people, typically the police. I will discuss this position later when I address the ideological misunderstandings on this subject. For now, all that is necessary is to see that nearly all people make a distinction between aggressive violence and defensive violence. The problem decent people face is aggression, not violence. The problem is not “gun violence” or even “gun aggression”. The problem is aggressive violence, by whatever means. Many people with a specific political goal deliberately confuse this point.

If we accept the obvious reality that a human being dedicated to harming others will find a way, then what can be done?

The only thing that can be done is to make ourselves and other decent human beings stronger. We must be rational adults and accept that predators can not be made safe by depriving them of the MEANS to harm, because an intelligent human dedicated to harming another person will ALWAYS be able to find means in some form. That is to say, we can not rid the world of aggression. Instead, we must accept radical responsibility for our own safety and the safety of other decent, innocent, people around us.

Technology provides decent people with the means to become stronger. With modest effort, even the physically smallest and weakest person can become quite strong, and a threat to deliver overwhelming defensive violence, making them very unattractive to human predators. This technology, of course, is the firearm. Study after study shows that when decent people are armed, or may be armed, then aggressive violence drops. A population where a small but significant number of people MAY be armed, but it is unknown to an assailant whether a particular individual is armed, as is the case in jurisdictions with “concealed carry” laws, see the highest reduction in violent crime. These are established facts.

In the 1800’s, the Colt Single-Action Army Pistol was called “The Equalizer”, because equipped with this technology, an otherwise physically weaker or slower person was equal to their bigger, stronger, faster aggressor. Women, who on average are about half the strength of a man, should give this some special consideration.

Consider that when only one nation possessed nuclear weapons, they were used. Since there has been the threat of overwhelming defensive violence, so-called “mutually assured destruction”, they have not. Many geopolitical strategists are concerned that one nation may develop the technical capability to launch a successful first attack that destroys the target nation’s ability to respond. This is called “nuclear primacy”. It is a concern because it removes the threat of defensive violence. It is exactly this concern of counter attack that has protected humanity for fifty years.
This, then, is the practical solution for dealing with aggressive violence:

1. Accept that it is impossible to eliminate the means to inflict harm.
2. Accept that some people will seek to harm others.
3. Create in yourself and other decent people the ability to respond to predators with overwhelming counter violence.

History shows us that when people do not have the means to defend themselves, they will eventually suffer atrocities.

The moral argument is more cut and dried:

A human being is the absolute owner and sovereign over [his] body. As such, [humans] have an absolute and inalienable right to defend themselves from aggression by others, by ANY means available or necessary, as long as those means do not harm other innocent people around them.

Any attempt to deprive [human beings] of the right to defend themselves is to deny tho[se persons] ownership and sovereignty over their own body.
As a sovereign individual, a human being has the absolute right to make mutually-voluntary agreements (contracts) with other human beings, to keep the products of their labor and justly-acquired property, whether obtained from labor or contract.

Depriving a human being of the right to keep the fruit of [his] labor is called “slavery”. Taking a person’s justly-acquired property by force is called “theft”. Both are aggressions against the person’s self-ownership and self-determination.

[H]uman being[s ha[ve] the absolute right to voluntarily disarm themselves. They do not have the right to forcefully disarm others, interfere with their voluntary relationships with others, take their property, or engage in any other aggression against another person, either directly or by proxy.

Any government which restricts or removes the means for innocent people to defend themselves no longer recognizes those people as free moral agents. It regards them as subjects, and rejects their most fundamental rights as owners of their own bodies. Any such government is de facto a tyranny and illegitimate.

The absolute right to defend one’s self and property is indistinguishable from and synonymous with the existence of the individual as a free moral agent.

Disarmed, we are subjects. Armed, we are citizens. As decent citizens, we have the moral duty to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and other innocent people from those who would harm us.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Saturday, February 24, 2018

More Leftist "Logic"

By Thomas DiLorenzo

Five Broward County cops cowardly hid behind their cop cars while seventeen students and faculty were being murdered and scores of others injured just feet away inside that Coral Springs, Florida school.

You know, those black-and-white cars that say “To Serve and Protect” on the side.  (As of this writing only one of them has “resigned”).  The county sheriff, one Scott Israel, has the chutzpah to have gone on national television to advocate more gun control laws that would disarm the law abiding, and greater reliance on his cowardly bureaucrats instead for school “protection.”  They’re very good, after all, at “forming a perimeter” around buildings while murderers are spraying people with bullets inside.

Meanwhile, the Lunatic Left acts as though Donald Trump himself pulled the trigger of that AR15.   Disarming the law abiding would of course guarantee an increase in mass shootings in schools and elsewhere.  Dial 911 and die.

The cops are essentially crime historians.  They show up after a crime has been committed, then they write up a report about the crime to be used to beg the legislature for more money for higher police salaries and for hiring more cops to increase police union dues revenues.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Friday, February 23, 2018

"Heroes" Only "Minutes Away"

By Dale Steinreich

It turns out that Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 students were murdered on Valentine’s Day last week, did have an armed and uniformed school resource officer from the Broward County Sheriff’s Department. What was the Hero in Blue, a one Scot Peterson, doing during the shooting? Video shows that he heard gunfire inside the school, approached the school building, but never entered the building during the shooting.

“I am devastated,” [Broward Sheriff Scott] Israel said. “Sick to my stomach. He never went in.  [He should have] [w]ent [sic] in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer.”

This is the same Sheriff Israel who appeared at last Wednesday night’s CNN anti-gun rally, er, “Town Hall,” advocating new gun controls.  More revelations about what the Broward County Sheriff’s Office did not do to stop the Parkland massacre:

Broward Sheriff’s deputies had multiple warnings that the 19-year-old was a potential school shooter, according to records released Thursday [today].

In November, a tipster called BSO [Broward Sheriff’s Office] to say Cruz “could be a school shooter in the making” but deputies did not write up a report on it. That came just weeks after a relative called asking BSO to seize his weapons. Two years ago, according to a timeline of interactions with Cruz’s family, a deputy investigated a report that Cruz “planned to shoot up the school” – intelligence forwarded to the campus deputy, with no apparent result.

His "backup" arrived just in time to have the school's inmates students removed with their hands up in surrender.


Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Lies, Damn Lies and Government Statistics

By James Delingpole

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating  ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data.

This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.
If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees.
Here is NOAA’s January 2018 chart for Northeast U.S. – an area which includes New England along with NY, PA, NJ, DE and MD.
You’d never guess from it that those regions had just experienced record-breaking cold, would you?
That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.
We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.
Homewood first smelt a rat when he examined the New York data sets.
He was particularly puzzled at NOAA’s treatment of the especially cold winter that ravaged New York in 2013/14, which he describes here:
The cold weather really began on Jan 2nd, when an Arctic front descended across much of the country, and extended well into March.
The NWS wrote at the end of the winter:
The winter of 2013-14 finished as one of the coldest winters in recent memory for New York State.  Snowfall across Western and North Central New York was above normal for many areas, and in some locations well above normal. This winter comes on the heels of two previous mild winters, making the cold and snow this winter feel that much harsher.
Temperatures this winter finished below normal every month, and the January through March timeframe finished at least 4 degrees below normal for the two primary climate stations of Western New York (Buffalo and Rochester)…..
Relentless cold continued through the month of January across the region.
So why, he wondered, did NOAA have this marked down as only the 30th coldest winter (since 1895) on its New York State charts, with a mean temperature of 16.9F?
Homewood compared the local records for January 1943 and January 2014 – months which, according to NOAA’s charts, had very similar average temperatures.
What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards.
He concludes:
On average the mean temperatures in Jan 2014 were 2.7F less than in 1943. Yet, according to NOAA, the difference was only 0.9F.
Somehow, NOAA has adjusted past temperatures down, relatively, by 1.8F.
Now, Homewood has given the same treatment to the most recent Big Freeze – the winter of 2017/2018.
Yet again, he has found that NOAA’s arbitrary adjustments tell a lie. They claim that January 2018 was warmer in the New York region than January 1943, when the raw data from local stations tells us this just isn’t true.
So at the three sites of Ithaca, Auburn and Geneva, we find that January 2018 was colder than January 1943 by 1.0, 1.7 and 1.3F respectively.
Yet NOAA say that the division was 2.1F warmer last month. NOAA’s figure makes last month at least 3.1F warmer in comparison with 1943 than the actual station data warrants.
He concludes:
Clearly NOAA’s highly homogenised and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data.
And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the US is any better?
Well indeed. The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary. Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data.
One excuse NOAA’s apologists make is that weather stations are subject to changing environmental conditions. For example, when the station sited at Syracuse in 1929 was located at what was originally just a sparse aerodrome. Since then, however, as Homewood notes, it has grown into a large international airport with two runways servicing two million passengers a year. Its weather station readings therefore will certainly have been corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect: that is, its temperature readings will have been artificially elevated by the warmth from the surrounding development and aircraft engines.
So you’d think, wouldn’t you, that to compensate for this NOAA would adjust the recent temperatures downwards. Instead, for no obvious reasons, it has adjusted them upwards.
This is a scandal. NOAA’s climate gatekeepers are political activists not honest scientists and the U.S. taxpayer has no business funding their propaganda.
Drain the swamp!

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Blood Theatre in Florida

By Thomas DiLorenzo

That would be Tallahassee today.  I had the misfortune of being stuck in a doctor’s office with CNN blaring for about a half hour.  Here’s what I learned:  The Democrat Party paid for a bunch of buses to take hundreds of school kids to Tallahassee to “protest” in favor of more gun-control laws — you know, like the ones that made their school a “gun-free zone.”  (Looks like your typical George Soros-funded “community organizing” left-wing mini-riot).  They then were given long-winded scripts written by Democrat Party operatives denouncing Trump, the NRA, and all the Republicans in Tallahassee while praising all of the Democrats in Tallahassee to the treetops.  While I was watching, not one of these little brain-numbed political pawns said anything other than banning the AR15 could “save” them from future mass shootings.  The state legislature voted against banning “assault rifles,” after which CNN put on the screen a hysterically crying little girl who threw a tantrum over this. Stalinist/East German Cold War brainwashing has nothing over the Democrat Party and its Florida sideshow.

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

The Gun Grabbers "Logic"?

By Jack Kerwick

To the activities of raping, murdering, and the like, we attach the harshest of penalties.  Yet still, people continue to rape and murder.  The Gun-Controller would have us think that a person, like Nikolas Cruz, who resolved months in advance to become a “professional school shooter,” as he revealed on social media, would have been deterred from mowing down innocents if only, somehow, there was that one law that prevented him from legally obtaining a firearm.

That is, the Gun-Controller maintains that though Cruz was not deterred by the threat of either serving the remainder of his natural existence in a prison cell or being executed for the crime of mass murder, he would have been deterred from following through with his plans if only it was illegal for him to purchase the weaponry that he wanted to use.
Now, if you still don’t see the imbecility in this logic, or if you pretend not to see it, then you must be among those who shout for more “gun-control” whenever a mass shooting assumes center-stage in the news cycle.

Read the entire article

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Monday, February 19, 2018

Predictable as The Sunrise

By Thomas DiLorenzo

There’s a big pro-gun-control event in a nearby town where sheeple are “protesting” over the recent incident where another mass shooting occurred at a gun-controlled, “gun-free zone” at a Florida school.  Here’s their “logic”:
  1. Every one of these mass shootings at a public school has been at a school that is a “gun-free zone,” usually by law.
  2. Everyone knows this.
  3. Therefore, to deter such tragedies in the future we need more gun-free-zones at schools, just like the one in Florida where the most recent mass shooting occurred.
UPDATE:  At an anti gun rally in Fort Lauderdale, organized by the Democrat Party and its media whores, the television news showed a number of thirteen-year-old girls used as props reading from prepared scripts denouncing Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association, as though Trump and the president of the NRA were the ones who pulled the trigger of that AR15 and killed all those people.  The theme of the “rally’ was the same as all such rallies, whether the issue is gun control, immigration, whatever:  “We hate Trump!  We hate Trump!  Make Hillary (or someone just like her) president!”

Meanwhile, the already-brainwashed little girls were obviously not aware of the fact that the shooting took place in a “gun-free zone” where everyone was unarmed and defenseless, having adopted the standard public school guns-are-scary ideology of the gun-grabbing Left.  And although congressional offices, the White House, and other government buildings are guarded by heavily-armed security guards, snipers, and missile launchers, there are members of Congress from Florida who support forcing everyone to remain unarmed and defenseless in the government schools.

Posted by  ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Tick Tok Tick Tok

By Judge Andrew Napolitano

Imagine you open the faucet of your kitchen sink expecting water and instead out comes cash. Now imagine that it comes out at the rate of $1 million a minute. You call your plumber, who thinks you’re crazy. To get you off the phone, he opines that it is your sink and therefore must be your money. So you spend it wildly. Then you realize that the money wasn’t yours and you owe it back.

Now imagine that this happens every minute of every day for the next three years. At the end of the three years, you owe back more than $6 trillion. So you borrow $6 trillion to pay back the $6 trillion you owe.
Is this unending spigot of cash reality or fantasy?

I am not speaking of Amazon or Google or Exxon Mobil or Apple. They deliver products that appeal to consumers and investors. They deal in copious amounts of money because they sell what hundreds of millions of people want to purchase and they do it so efficiently that hundreds of thousands want to invest in them. If they fail to persuade consumers to purchase their products and investors to purchase their financial instruments, they will go out of business.

My analogy about all that cash in your kitchen sink that just keeps coming is not about voluntary commercial transactions, which you are free to accept or reject. It is about the government's spending what it doesn’t have, the consequences of which you are not free to reject.

Government produces no products that consumers are willing to pay for voluntarily, and it doesn’t sell shares of stock in its assets. It doesn’t generate wealth; it seizes it. And when it can no longer politically get away with seizing, it borrows. It borrows a great deal of money -- money that it rolls over, by borrowing trillions to pay back trillions to prior lenders, and thus its debt never goes away.

Last week, after eight years of publicly complaining that then-President Barack Obama was borrowing more than $1 trillion a year to fund the government -- borrowing that the Republicans silently consented to -- congressional Republicans, now in control of Congress and with a friend in the Oval Office, voted to spend and hence borrow between $5 trillion and $6 trillion more than tax revenue will produce in the next three years; that’s a few trillion more than they complained about in the Obama years.
That’s borrowing $1 million a minute.

Obviously, no business or household or bank can survive very long by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Yet the federal government, no matter which party controls Congress or the presidency, engages in staggering borrowing -- borrowing that will cripple future generations by forcing them to pay for goods and services that were consumed before they were born.

The government has often borrowed to meet critical emergency needs, typically during wartime. Indeed, the country was born in debt when Alexander Hamilton, the father of big government, offered the idea that the new federal government created by the Constitution could purchase the fidelity of the states by assuming their Revolutionary War debts.
But those debts were paid back using inflation, gold and tax dollars, and the country enjoyed sporadic periods of nearly debt-free government. Then three unhappy events coincided about 100 years ago: Woodrow Wilson -- the father of modern-day big government -- was elected president, and he brought us into the useless battle over national borders among old European royalty called the Great War, and he financed American participation in that first world war using the new printing presses owned by the new Federal Reserve System.

The $30 billion President Wilson borrowed from the Federal Reserve and others has been rolled over and over and has never been repaid. The federal government still owes the $30 billion principal, and for that it has paid more than $15 billion in interest. Who in his right mind would pay 50 percent interest on a 100-year-old debt? Only the government.

Wilson’s $30 billion debt 100 years ago has ballooned to $20.6 trillion today. At the end of President Donald Trump’s present term -- because of the Republican budget signed into law last week -- the government’s debt will be about $27 trillion.

That amount is a debt bomb waiting to explode. Here’s why. Every year, the federal government collects about $2.5 trillion in revenue and spends it all. It borrows another $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion and spends it all. To avoid paying back any of the $27 trillion it will owe, the federal government will need to spend about $1 trillion a year in interest payments.

That $1 trillion is 40 percent of the revenue collected by the federal government; that’s 40 cents on every dollar in tax revenue going to interest on old debts -- interest payments that are legally unavoidable by taxpayers and voters.

Will the taxpaying public tolerate this much longer? What would happen if taxpayers stopped paying taxes because 40 percent of what they've been paying has produced nothing for them? Would investors stop lending money to the government because of fear that the government could not pay them back? The Constitution requires the government to pay its debts. Would the government’s creditors acquire control of the government’s fiscal policy in order to pay themselves back? The government’s biggest creditor is one of its biggest menaces -- the government of China.

Borrowing money at $1 million a minute is digging a hole out of which we will never peacefully climb. President Obama’s and President Trump’s own military and intelligence chiefs have argued that the national debt -- not the Russians or the Islamic State group or the North Koreans -- is the greatest threat to freedom and security that we face today.

Why are Congress and President Trump not listening?

Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ

With a Straight Face and Not even A Chuckle...

...The Special Counsel Robert Mueller

has a grand jury hand down indictments against a dozen + “Russian individuals and entities” for what amounts to publishing insulting statements and comments about the criminal Clinton gang. We have it on good authority that in this instance the proverbial “ham sandwich” escaped the wrath of his witch hunt.

The alleged purpose driving these evil Russians was to influence the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. Imagine that! There is as yet no word on any possible prosecution of CNN and the Democrat Party for attempting to overturn the result of said election. Apparently it is a criminal/prosecutable offense to oppose a nominated empress selected by the deep state ruling class notwithstanding the US’ history of “medeling in the internal affairs of sovereign foreign nations e.g. the short list just since 1948:

2016: UK (verbal intervention against Brexit)
2014: Afghanistan (effectively re-writing Afghan constitution)
2014: UK (verbal intervention against Scottish independence)
2011: Libya (providing support to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi)
2009: Honduras (ousting President Zelaya)
2006: Palestine (providing support to oust Prime Minister Haniyeh)
2005: Syria (providing support against President al-Assad)
2003: Iran (providing support against President Khatami)-
2003: Iraq (ousting of President Hussein)
2002: Venezuela (providing support to attempt an overthrow of President  Chavez)
1999: Yugoslavia (removing Yugoslav forces from Kosovo)
1994: Iraq (attempted overthrow of President Hussein)
1991: Haiti (ousting President Aristide)
1991: Kuwait (removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait)
1989: Panama (ousting General Noriega)
1983: Grenada (ousting General Austin's Marxist forces)
1982: Nicaragua (providing support
1971: Chile (ousting President Allende)
1967: Indonesia (ousting President Sukarno)
1964: Brazil (ousting President Goulart)
1964: Chile (providing support against Salvador Allende)
1961: Congo (assassination of leader Lumumba)
1958: Lebanon (providing support to Christian political parties)
1954: Guatemala (ousting President Arbenz)
1953: Iran (ousting Prime Minister Mossadegh)
1953: Philippines (providing support to the President Magsaysay campaign)
1948: Italy (providing support to the Christian Democrats campaign)

It would appear that the socalled "Deep State" lacks a sense of irony.