Monday, February 27, 2017

GIGO-based energy and climate policies

It’s like formulating public safety policies using models based on dinosaur DNA from amber
Paul Driessen  (Editor's Note:  Emphasis added by me.  RK)
Things are never quiet on the climate front.
After calling dangerous manmade climate change a hoax and vowing to withdraw the USA from the Paris agreement, President Trump has apparently removed language criticizing the Paris deal from a pending executive order initiating a rollback of anti-fossil-fuel regulations, to help jumpstart job creation.
Meanwhile, EPA Administration Scott Pruitt says he expects quick action to rescind the Clean Power Plan, a central component of the Obama Era’s war on coal and hydrocarbons. The US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is reopening its investigation into NOAA’s mishandling or tampering with global temperature data, for a report designed to promote action in Paris in 2015.
Hundreds of scientists signed a letter urging President Trump to withdraw from the UN climate agency. They warn that efforts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions are not scientifically justified and will kill jobs and exacerbate US and international poverty without improving the environment or stabilizing climate.
Hundreds of other scientists told Mr. Trump he must not waver on climate stabilization efforts or make any moves to defund government or university climate research. Hundreds of businessmen and investors told the President failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk.
Over in Britain, Members of Parliament say efforts to build a low-carbon economy have led to a 58% rise in electricity prices since 2006, sending manufacturing and jobs overseas, to countries that are under no obligation to reduce fossil fuel use or CO2 emissions. MPs are also angry that carefully hidden “green subsidies” will account for nearly one-fourth of sky-high residential electricity bills by 2020.
All of this is a valuable reminder that the Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry is now a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! And that’s just for its private sector components, the corporate rent-seekers.
This monstrous price tag does not include the Big Green environmentalism industry, the salaries and pensions of armies of federal, state, local, foreign country and UN bureaucrats who create and coordinate climate and renewable energy programs, or the far higher electricity and motor fuel costs that businesses and families must pay, to cover the costs of “saving people and planet from climate ravages.”
Earth’s climate is likely changing somewhere, as it has throughout planetary and human history. Our fuel use and countless other human activities may play a role, at least locally – but their role is dwarfed to near irrelevance by powerful solar, oceanic, cosmic ray and other natural forces.
Moreover, real-world ice, sea level, temperature, hurricane, drought and other observations show nothing outside historic fluctuations. Unprecedented disasters exist only in the realm of hypotheses, press releases and computer models.
So there is no reason to cede control over our livelihoods and living standards to politicians, activists and bureaucrats; replace reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy with expensive, unreliable renewables; destroy millions of jobs in the process; and tell billions of impoverished people they must be content with solar ovens, solar panels, wind turbines, and health, nutrition and living standards little better than today’s.
There is no reason to honor the document that President Obama unilaterally signed in Paris. As Dr. Steve Allen observed in a masterful analysis: “The decisive action promised in the treaty that is not a treaty consists of governments, most of them run by dictators and thieves, promising, on an honor system, to take steps of their own choosing, to change future weather patterns, and then coming up with ways by which they can measure their own progress and hold themselves accountable by their own standards for the promises they have made, on penalty of no punishment if they break their word.”
Mainly, Allen continues, the Paris con is about “taking money from taxpayers and consumers and businesspeople and electricity ratepayers, and giving it to crony capitalists; and taking money from people in relatively successful countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries, to benefit governing elites.”
India alone wants hundreds of billions of dollars in climate “adaptation and reparation” money from industrialized nations that are supposed to slash their fossil fuel use, CO2 emissions and economic growth, while pouring trillions into the Green Climate Fund. Meanwhile, India, China and other rapidly developing nations are firing up hundreds of coal-fueled power plants, burning more oil and gas, and emitting more CO2, to industrialize their countries and lift their people out of abject poverty – as well they should.
So just follow the money – and power-grabbing. That is the real source of the religious fervor, the Catechism of Climate Cataclysm, behind the vehement denunciations of President Trump for having the gall to threaten the global high priests who drive and profit from climate change fear mongering.
Those forces are desperate and determined to keep their power and money train on track. They’re ramping up indignation and cranking out “research” to justify their demands. For example:
Expert Market (whose core expertise is helping companies compare prices for postage meters, coffee machines and other B2B products) has just released a study purporting to show which US states will suffer most “from Trump’s climate change denial” and America’s “climate change inaction.”
The total cost will be $506 billion by 2050, just for hurricane and other real estate damages, extra energy costs, and more frequent and severe droughts. “Vermont emerged as the state worst equipped to handle the cost,” the study contends, while Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas are also “severely at risk.” California and New York are among those best able to endure the imminent chaos.
It sounds horrific – and it’s intended to be, the better to pressure the White House and Congress to codify and enforce the nonbinding provisions of the Paris non-treaty, and retain Obama-era anti-hydrocarbon energy policies. But the entire exercise is a classic example of Garbage In/Garbage Out (GIGO) black box computer modeling, carefully crafted to ensure the justifications required for a predetermined political outcome, especially the monumental “nationwide green initiatives” that Expert Market supports.
Thus, carbon dioxide will drive rapidly rising global temperatures that will warm the planet enough to increase sea surface temperatures dramatically – spawning more frequent, more damaging hurricanes, and melting polar ice caps enough to raise sea levels 23 inches by 2050, the Expert Market experts assert.
Global warming measured in hundredths of a degree over the past 19 years will suddenly be replaced by runaway heat waves. Seas now rising at 7 inches per century will suddenly climb at ten times that rate over the next three decades, sending storm surges far inland. Major US land-falling hurricanes that have been absent now for eleven years will suddenly proliferate to unprecedented levels.
How Vermont and the other top-five “worst equipped” states – all of them inland – will be affected by any of this is anyone’s guess. But the model says they’re at risk, so we must take drastic action now.
Soaring temperatures will increase demand for air conditioning, and thus raise household energy costs, says Expert Market. CA, NY and other “green” state electricity costs are already twice as high as those in coal and gas-reliant states. Imposing wind and solar initiatives on fossil fuel states would likely double their family and business energy costs, but that factor is not included in its calculations.
Droughts “will become more frequent and severe” in states already afflicted by arid conditions – assuming all the dire CO2 depredations, and ignoring both those states’ long experience with drought cycles and how California’s years-long drought has once again given way to abundant rainfall.
The Expert Market study is symptomatic of the politicized assumptions and data manipulation that have driven climate models and disaster scenarios since the IPCC began studying manmade climate chaos.
Indeed, the entire climate chaos exercise is akin to basing public safety policies on computer models that assume dinosaur DNA extracted from fossilized amber will soon result in hordes of T rexes running rampant across our land. We deserve a more honest, rational basis for policies that govern our lives.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Quote of the Day!

Barack Obama wrote a book titled "The Audacity of Hope." His own career, however, might more accurately be titled "The Mendacity of Hype."  - Thomas Sowell

Thought For the Day

Trump says not going to White House Correspondents dinner

By Joseph Weber February 26, 2017

President Trump said Saturday that he will not attend the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, escalating his battle with the news media and raising questions about the future of the annual event.  "I will not be attending the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this year," Trump tweeted. "Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!".........Continue Reading.....

Klayman: Good for President Trump.  The WHCD is hosted by a bunch of self aggrandizing leftist media snobs who have a false sense of self importance!

Ben Stein: Media doing to Trump what it did to Nixon
CNN February 26, 2017
While defending President Trump's decision to skip the White House Correspondence Dinner, Ben Stein said that the media is "trying to do to Trump what they did to Nixon" during the Watergate scandal..........Continue Reading.....

Klayman: Well said by my good friend Ben Stein on leftist media's attempt to destroy President Trump!

Do as I say, not as I do

Jon Ray @ Dissecting Leftism

(Editor's Note:  This is paraphrased of a series of comments made by Jon Ray on this subject.  RK)

The Left love preaching civilized behaviour even while they behave in the most offensive manner possible. The election of Trump has seen them sink to the very depths of offensive words and behaviour.  So what has Amnesty International got to say about that behavior?  Crickets.  They criticize Mr. Trump only.

There is no doubt that Mr Trump's policies have tended to make Muslims and Hispanics feel unwelcome but that is just a reflection of the fact that Muslims and Hispanics have made themselves unwelcome by their egregious behaviour. If Amnesty wants to seen as more than a Leftist propaganda mouthpiece they will have to start looking at both sides of the matter. 

This article, Global Rights Group Accuses Trump, Others of ‘Politics of Demonization’, by Patrick Goodenough notes: The Left-leaning Amnesty International has accused President Trump and other “anti-establishment” politicians of “wield[ing] politics of demonization that hounds, scapegoats and dehumanizes entire groups of people to win the support of voters.”  “Donald Trump’s poisonous campaign rhetoric exemplifies a global trend towards angrier and more divisive politics,” Amnesty International said in a new annual report covering 159 countries and territories.

A Washington post editorial, "Breaking the unwritten rules of governing", criticizes Mr Trump's firing of Sally Yates -- an Obama relic heading the Justice Department -- when she refused to do her job.  What was he supposed to say other than "You're fired"?  Once again the Leftist rag is preaching the highest standards of civilized behavior -- oblivious that the Left themselves constantly do the opposite.  They have the brass to say that we should not demonize political opponents.  So "Trump = Hitler" and all the rest is wrong?  It certainly is but the Post does not mention that.

I have not made any attempt to do a search of their own articles but I note that in yesterday's issue they had an article written by an Obamabot which was headed "The White House’s thoughtless, cruel and sad rollback of transgender rights".  That's a pretty good effort at demonization  -- particularly because Trump didn't roll back anything.  He just reverted the matter to the States, who may or may not do something about it.

Ethics, morality, principles and decency are all alien to the left.  They just haven't got it in them.  Their only constancy is their hatred of others.

Champagne Time! It's a "Bloodbath" at the State Department

by Robert Spencer, February 24, 2017

At least one swamp appears to be being drained. "It's a bloodbath at the State Department," the New York Post hyperventilated last Friday: "Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is cleaning house at the State Department, according to a report." In Donald Trump's America, so much has happened so quickly to set the nation on a course decisively different from the one it was on during the regime of his disastrous socialist internationalist predecessor that this particular bit of good news was largely overlooked.

But if a housecleaning at the State Department isn't a cause for celebration, nothing is. "Many of those let go were on the building's seventh floor - top-floor bigs," the Post tells us, and adds that this is "a symbolically important sign to the rest of the diplomatic corps that their new boss has different priorities than the last one." Pop the champagne! And not only that, but "this week's round of firings marks the second time State Department personnel have been cleared out since President Trump took office last month. Four top officials were cleared out of the building at the end of January." Break out the hats and hooters!.......To Read More....

Slavery Wasn’t Based Upon Skin Color

By on February 21, 2017 in Daily Rant, Education, Politics, Race & Politics 30

A myth that many Americans as a whole buy into is that slavery was about being a skin color - Self-limiting pursuits that serve only to retard personal growth and reject modernity have plagued blacks in America uninterrupted, in the form of identity politics, since the collapse of the oppressive eras of subjugated inequality, i.e., slavery, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), and Jim Crow laws that were instituted and maintained by the Democrat Party.

No people as a group have been more harmed by the ruthless constructs of identity politics than blacks. I contend that W.E.B. Du Bois, with the admonition of Vladimir Lenin, introduced identity politics at the beginning of the 20th century, and it continues today as an industry – second only to abortion in its destructive effect on blacks.

Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiative and Richard Nixon’s skin-color based affirmative action programming can be argued as nails in the coffin that contained the abandonment of personal responsibility, true self-esteem, civility, and propriety, for many, if not most blacks. And as referenced, said decline continues unabated today.

Tragically, most blacks base their identity upon the color of their skin and the inculcated immiseration born out of their self-induced theology of victimology associated with same.

For the overwhelming majority of blacks, being a skin color is not only sacrosanct; it is paramount to their identity above all else including God Almighty Himself. Skin color is foundational to all they aspire to be to the point of harboring visceral contempt for anyone who doesn’t share their debilitating fixation upon same.

Perhaps one of the most overlooked, indeed most unknown facts is that blacks were not brought to America as a color. That is a difficult fact to digest for those fixated upon being a color. It is the deadly truth those making an industry out of marketing skin color do not want known, and/or understood because it threatens the skin color narrative. Specific to said point, if that understanding is embraced, then it logically follows that people will begin to question when and why did skin color become important?

Africans were hunted, captured, and sold as a form of commerce, just as slavery was with every other group of people spanning history beginning in the Old Testament Book of Genesis. People were not selected to be slaves based upon skin color, they were conscripted into slavery vis-a`-vis war and/or commerce, which understandably resulted in people being born into slavery.

As I outlined in my eBook “Blacks Are Victims Because They’re Told They Are,” blacks were slaves just as every other population group has been at some point in their history. But thanks to Lenin and Du Bois slavery in America has resulted in a windfall of bounty for the skin color mongers, and emotional and psychological poverty for the rest.

Reducing one’s self-esteem to being a skin color is an act of self-sabotage that has been encouraged by nefarious hate mongers, the ignorant and those who refuse to acknowledge and embrace modernity.

Another myth that many Americans as a whole buy into is that slavery was about being a skin color. Slavery was not about being a skin color, rather as I have argued, it became about being a skin color because that fit at first a social narrative, and later a socio-political narrative.

I have argued many times that the Civil War wasn’t fought based upon the skin color of the slaves. Slavery was only a tangential reason for fighting the Civil War. The primary reasons had to do with state’s rights versus what several Southern states viewed as an overreach of federal authority in violation to the Constitution. Other causal factors included expansionism and nationalism that led to calls for Southern secession, which the Northern states were unwilling to abide. These factors, while not exhaustive, played a large role in launching America into war with itself. Specific to that point, skin color only became the issue when the Democrat Party employed same as a means to continue slavery and as a reason to punish “free Negroes” for supporting Republicans.

Skin color became the issue Democrats exploited, as we see evidenced by the arguments Democrats employed to perpetuate slavery. Skin color for Democrats was a means of fomenting fear-mongering that the “dark skinned” slaves were less than human, and if freed they would rape white women. (Evidence: The Birth of a Nation; D. W. Griffith; 1915)

“In 1820, the Democrat Congress passed the Missouri Compromise. That law first repealed the provisions of the original 1789 anti-slavery law forbidding the extension of slavery into any federal territory, and then authorized the extension of slavery into new federal territories.” (Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Words; Page 3)

Democrats fought all restrictions on slavery asserting that ending slavery would not only negatively impact the happiness of America but would also lead to America’s destruction by the freed slaves. The same argument would have been made regardless of the skin color of the slaves. In fact, the argument was used against the Indian tribes to validate the abhorrent treatment they received. Hitler likewise used the argument against the Jews to create negatives that were used as reasons to validate their extermination.

It is also important to note that the terrorism and mistreatment of “free Negroes,” as persons of color were called in America at that time, didn’t start until slaves were freed. It was at that time the KKK and Jim Crow laws were used by Democrats to subjugate blacks because blacks had turned to the Republican Party in vast numbers. Democrat consternation had to do with political control and skin color identity politics was the most expedient way to accomplish their objective.

This fact was attested to by “free Negroes” themselves: The “inhuman outrages” perpetuated upon African Americans in the South were largely committed through the Democrats’ Ku Klux Klan. It is indisputable historical fact that the Klan was started by Democrats. In fact, during congressional hearings on the subject, one prominent Democrat testified that the Ku Klux Klan “belongs to . . . our party – the Democratic Party.” And the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan was prominent Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, an honoree at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. Recall also that every Democrat in Congress voted against the 1871 bill to punish Klan violence (See note about this bill on Pg. 8; Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Word).

Why were blacks so often the target of Klan violence? According to African American U. S. Rep. John Roy Lynch: “More colored than white men are thus persecuted simply because they constitute in larger numbers the opposition to the Democratic Party.” African American U. S. Rep. Richard Cain of South Carolina, a bishop of the AME denomination, agreed, declaring: “The bad blood of the South comes because the Negroes are Republicans. If they would only cease to be Republicans and vote the straight-out Democratic ticket there would be no trouble. Then the bad blood would sink entirely out of sight.” It was these Democratic and Klan “inhuman outrages” to which Republicans here object. (Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Words; Pg.14)

It cannot be overlooked that neither of these men said they were persecuted for being black. Both men stated quite clearly that they were persecuted because the “free Negroes” in vastly greater numbers supported the Republican Party. Democrats weren’t concerned about skin color as such; they were concerned about the preservation of slavery at any cost. Skin color was simply the vehicle they used to disenfranchise the “freed Slaves” and advance their Erebusic agenda, just as Democrats and progressives are doing today.

Moving forward, both Lenin and Du Bois understood that by fomenting resentment and distrust based upon skin color they could prosper politically, which also meant that they could prosper financially.

Fast forwarding past the history I discuss in my book, as referenced previously, we come to where we are today. Being recognized in any capacity as long as their skin color is included is the utmost desire for many blacks. In reality skin color prestige is the affectation of the small-minded who are motivated by various forms of inculcated inferiority and exhibitions of bigotry as a means of obfuscating same.

The brainwashing of blacks pursuant to the importance of valuing skin color above all reason has been so complete and thorough — that they with apoplectic hysteria reflexively attack anyone and everyone who does not subscribe to being a color.

Persons who view themselves by nationality juxtaposed by skin color are accused of being ashamed of their “race,” which as I have explained in other writings, there is no such thing as “race.” Blacks despise persons who do not place skin color on an altar to be worshiped. And the Erebusic progressive hordes that benefit financially and politically encourage said behavior.

Americans are more than a skin color and embracing nationality over ethnicity does not by definition mean one is ashamed of their ethnicity. It means they are proud of their nationality a fact that history proves is not a bad thing; it is quite the opposite.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

P&D For Februry 25, 26, 2017

My Commentary
Book Review
Government Corruption

Cartoon of the Day!


Observations From the Back Row: Media Outrage and Hypocrisy

By Rich Kozlovich 

Today I've linked a number of articles dealing with the "fake news" and "The media is the enemy of Americans" issue surrounding President Trump. 

Of course the media is outraged - they're finally being called to task by someone everyone has to listen to  - the owner of the Bully Pulpit - The President of the United States, Donald Trump. 

He's called the media scum.  So have I and many others over the years.  He's called the media America's enemy.  So have I and many others over the years.  He's called the media liars.  So have I and many others over the years.  And the list goes on. 

But when newsies like me - and all these others - exposed their craven mendacity it may had some effect, but how much can only be guessed at.  While we may have gotten others to see what we've been seeing for decades we couldn't change a thing as long as the leadership play the game by the media's rules, i.e., they decide what's important, who's important, what's news and what's not news.  In short - someone is finally saying to them - you don't have the power to control the message by lying and get away with it any longer.  And that someone is the President of the United States who doesn't care one whit whether the media likes him or not.  Mostly because he's smart enough to know no matter what he does they're going to hate and villify them.  And he understands appeasers are like the prey eaten by crocodiles. 

He doesn't want money - he has more than he or his family can spend.  He doesn't want more power because he's got all he can handle.  He doesn't want prestige or he would have stayed out of this.  He doesn't want position because he is the "position".    And it's clear by his actions none of these things are of concern to him after he's out of office. 

I never liked Trump.  From the beginning of this election cycle I dismissed both he and Bernie Sanders as "perpetual" candidates looking to get some publicity.  And that's what they were.  Both of the were as shocked as I when it looked like they actually had a following and could take their party's nomination. We now know that couldn't happen with the Democrats because it was rigged.

But it was possible in the Republican Party, and it did happen in the Republican party, the party the media hates.  Not the party of rigged elections, but the party that allowed someone the leadership despised to become it's nominee because the "people" of the Republican party decided who was to be the nominee, not the party leaders.  And they picked a nominee prominent Republicans repudiated, and a number of them - including George Will - even wanted Hillary to win.

I said back then: Tell me how a man treats his wife, and in this case wives, and I will tell you who he is.  Well, I really hate being wrong, but I also hate not admitting to being wrong.  As I'm fond of saying.....that was a logical fallacy.  First, his life was an open book so he didn't have anything to hide and his reputation couldn't have been worse.  Secondly, I didn't take into consideration a man who was unstable in his married life can still be successful in business. 

If a man can be successful in business, he can be successful in politics, because both require good acting skills.  He never expected to be where he is and when it became obvious to him he might actually win the Presidency, I saw a change.  He's now come to believe he can save America from the socialists who've been working to destroy the Constitution, American capitalism and the nation.  An ongoing effort since Stalin sent his agents here to do so in the 1920's, and the Democrat party with FDR was instrumental in that infiltration. 

That infiltration included the newspapers, radio, Hollywood, the unions, academia and every department of the federal government, including what became the CIA.   Are you ready for this?  McCarthy was right.  His numbers may have been off, but based on what we know from the VENONA intercepts, perhaps not by much.  One more thing.  McCarthy's Senate committee only looked into communist infiltration of government.  It was the House on UnAmerica Activities Committee (HUAC) in the House run by the Democrats who went after Hollywood. 

Do you see the pattern?  McCarthy has been vilified for decades by the Democrats and their propaganda machine - the main stream media in the fifties, but actually the corruption goes back to before WWII.  During the war they even promoted Stalin and Russia as allies against Hitler, easily forgetting they were collaborators of Hitler invading Poland, the Baltic states and Finland. 

Donald Trump has taken them to task and they're outraged at being exposed as "alcoholics" of news.  Addicted to the power, prestige and privilege that's been bestowed upon them by themselves.  That's over with.  With the exception of  Reince Priebus, White House Chief of Staff, the Trump team won't play their game.

Trump's team is going to lay down the rules and the media will play by them or be out.  The main stream media is toast and the so-called alternative media is going to become transcendent because the alternative media doesn't need Trump and will say what they believe to be true without concern about pride, prejudice or privilege. 

Trump reminds me of me - "It's not about me, it's about the mission."  And part of his mission in saving America means destroying the traitors, liars, and charlatans of the media.  And the idea of a man who's played the clown saving America must he heady stuff for him, and that's how he sees his place in history.  The President who saved America.  With that as a goal: who cares what the media thinks? 

One more thing.  For those of us who remember when Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers we remember the media's, and the Democrats, outrage.  Reagan won, even against advisers in his own party and administration - and the net result?  The postal workers, who threatened to strike, didn't, and world leaders realized they were facing  a real man who was not to be taken lightly, and the Soviet Union collapsed. 

Don't kid yourself.  The world's leaders were aware Obama - and his administration - on their best day had a backbone of spaghetti and the mental and intellectual discipline of a child.  The world's leaders understand Trump and his administration is made up of adults who are smart, knowledgeable, tough and fearless. 

America's greatest threat durning the Reagan years was the Soviet Union.  Reagan's goal was to defeat the Soviet Union and he made compromises with the left in order to do so.  The world is going to change, and the left, which has been a threat to the nation for over a hundred years, is now the number one threat to the nation's continued existence.

Just as Reagan bested the air traffic controllers and brought down the Soviet Union, Trump is going to have to face down the media because his goal must be to defeat the left.   Trump must stay the course and expose the media for whom and what they are in order to accomplish that mission.

No, Donald Trump is NOT Undermining a Free Press

By Howard Portnoy February 25, 2017

Earlier this week, MSNBC’s Mika Bzezinski accidentally told the truth on live TV. She said that Donald Trump could “undermine the media … messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job.”

Her assertion that Trump is undermining the free press is not original. A Google search for the string “Trump undermining the free press” returns over a million links.  One of them is to an opinion piece in “Newsweek” published toward the end of December. The author is Robert Reich, secretary of labor under Bill Clinton and current political commentator at large.
In his article, Reich identifies four ways in which Trump is attempting to control the media:

  1. Berate the media and turn the public against it
  2. Limit media access
  3. Threaten the media
  4. Bypass the media and communicate with the public directly
As an example of the first bullet point, Reich writes, “Trump refers to journalists as ‘dishonest,’ ‘disgusting’ and ‘scum.’” Granted, the style of criticism may be harsh, even (perish the thought!) “unpresidential,” but is it unique to Trump?........To Read More.....

Undercover Journalist Goes After CNN and Establishment Media with Hundreds of Hours of Insider Footage

By Tim Brown February 25, 2017

Project Veritas James O’Keefe appeared on Sean Hannity‘s radio show on Monday and has warned that he would release “hundreds of hours” of tape from inside the establishment media, and it seems that particular media group is CNN.  Here’s how the important portions of the Hannity interview went.
O’Keefe: In the next 48 hours, Project Veritas, like Wikileaks, will be releasing hundreds of hours of tape from within the establishment media. Our next target is in fact, the media. 
Hannity: How long have you been working on this? 
O’Keefe: We’ve had people on the inside come to us. Just like Julian Assange has people come to him, we’ve had people, sources come to us and give us information, and we’re going to be releasing it “Wikileaks Style” this week............
“The Most Trusted Name in News,” CNN has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted and we’ve covered that with video evidence that they are not erring on certain stories, but knowingly fabricating them..............To Read More.....

Fox News Anchor Stands Up For CNN And Defines 'Fake News'

By Carla Herreria Huffington Post February 25, 2017
After the White House blocked several major news organizations from attending an off-camera press briefing, known as a gaggle, journalists, both invited to the presser and not, stood up for the media.  Among them was Fox News anchor Shepard Smith.  During a Friday news segment, he explained the White House's gaggle debacle and discussed President Donald Trump bashing media as "fake news" during the president's Conservative Political Action Conference speech earlier that day.  Continue Reading.....


Klayman - Time for Shepard Smith to join Megyn Kelly at NBC!

Black & Blonde Media February 25, 2017
Freedom Watch's Larry Klayman commented to Black & Blonde Media on President Trump and CPAC conservatives as well as the action his group is taking against CNN for the outrageous segment they broadcast, speculating what would happen after a President Donald Trump assassination........Click to Watch Video
White House blocks news organizations from press briefing
 By Dylan Byers, Sara Murray and Kevin Liptak CNN February 25, 2017
CNN and other news outlets were blocked on Friday from attending an off-camera White House press briefing that other reporters were hand-picked to attend, raising alarm among media organizations and First Amendment watchdogs.  The decision struck veteran White House journalists as unprecedented in the modern era, and escalated tensions in the already fraught relationship between the Trump administration and the press.  Continue Reading.....

Klayman - Trump's barring CNN and other dishonest leftist media rags from press briefing is the least they should expect! Round One Trump! See

Tapper: White House excluding the press is 'un-American'
By Christina Manduley and Jason Kurtz CNN February 25, 2017
(CNN) CNN's Jake Tapper said there's one word to describe the White House's decision to block several news organizations from a press briefing: "un-American."  CNN, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico and Buzzfeed were blocked from an off-camera press briefing Friday held by White House press secretary Sean Spicer just hours after President Donald Trump again said much of the press represents "the enemy of the people," this time during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.  Continue Reading.....
Klayman: News for Jake Tapper! You and CNN, the "Communist News Network," are the ones who are Un-American!

The media portrays the affirmation of the First Amendment in the Trump CPAC speech.

By Joe Scudder February 25, 2017

The Donald Trump CPAC speech is posted below. I highly recommend that you listen to it if you have time. You can read a transcript ........."“A few days ago, I called the fake news the enemy of the people because they have no sources — they just make it up,” he said. He added that his “enemy of the people” label applied only to “dishonest” reporters and editors."........... It is interesting how the mainstream media portrays the Trump CPAC speech. The New York Times reports,......More Here.

Nine Asylum Seekers Charged With Gang-Raping German School Teacher

By Michael Ware February 25, 2017

It seems evident that there is a problem, until last couple years it was unknown or at least unreported. There is an apparent disdain within Islam for women. This disdain is not only seen in the way they treat women as property to be bought and sold, or even the sex slave passages in the Quran.

The biggest indication of this comes from the fact that Islamic men are prone to rape. This is seen in almost every place that the Islamic asylum seeker goes. Further, it should be pointed out that this holds true for every point of origin.

Whether he is from Iraq, Syria, North Africa, every place that the Muslim comes from, he brings this propensity for sexual violence with him. The reason is that in Islam rape of non-Muslim women is not forbidden.  The recent trial of nine such asylum seekers is common practice then.......To Read More.....

My Take - And where's the outrage from feminists and the media? 

NSA Wiretap Net Much Larger Than Previously Reported

By Joel Goodman, Townhall February 25, 2017
According to Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, who made public disclosures last week, NSA is routinely collecting millions of warrant-less telephone conversations and emails of American citizens.

Klayman, who previously founded Judicial Watch, stated that his client, whistleblower Dennis Montgomery, who was an NSA/CIA contractor, has already turned over to the FBI 600 million pages of illegal intercepts of such people as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, other SCOTUS justices, over 156 judges, pre-president Donald Trump and prominent people. Unlike Edward Snowden, Montgomery was given immunity from prosecution after he took the files for the purpose of handing them over to the FBI so they could investigate the files' contents.......  Continue Reading.....

Seized documents could raise legal questions for John Doe special prosecutor, GAB

By   /   February 24, 2017  /   News  /   3 Comments @ Wisconsin Watchdog

Part 385 of 383 in the series Wisconsin's Secret War

MADISON, Wis. – The state Department of Justice’s seizure of documents from the state Ethics Commission could present some legal problems for the special prosecutor of the political “John Doe II” investigation or agents of the now-defunct state Government Accountability Board, an attorney close to the situation tells Wisconsin Watchdog.

On Friday, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the DOJ seized materials from the Ethics Commission earlier this month as part of its probe into a leak of court-sealed documents to liberal publication The Guardian U.S.

The disclosure comes one week after the Journal Sentinel reported state Justice Department investigators reviewed documents in the clerk’s office of the state Supreme Court.

The newspaper did not make clear precisely what was seized at the Ethics Commission office, but if those “materials” were documents from the unconstitutional probe into Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign and dozens of conservative groups, former John Doe prosecutor Francis Schmitz could have some questions to answer.

In November, Schmitz signed an affidavit Concerning John Doe II Evidence, noting that he had complied with a Supreme Court order demanding that he return documents and other items seized from John Doe targets and turn over evidentiary materials to the Supreme Court.

“To the best of my knowledge, I have received statements from all who have direct access to evidentiary materials as part of the prosecution team,” Schmitz wrote in the Nov. 2 affidavit. “In those statements, those individuals all state that they either turned over documents and electronic data and no longer possess same (or copies thereof), or never possessed documents and/or data (or copies thereof) obtained in the course of the investigation.”

The court in 2015 declared the campaign finance investigation unconstitutional and ordered it shut down. Schmitz’s position was deemed invalid from his entry as special prosecutor in 2013. He was given the last duties of making sure that illegally seized property was returned to its rightful owners, and that “evidence” or copies collected were surrendered from investigators and transferred to the custody of the court.

The now-defunct state Government Accountability Board (predecessor of the Ethics Commission), which assisted Milwaukee County prosecutors and Schmitz in the politically driven probe, should not have John Doe documents in its possession.

Edward Greim, attorney for some of the conservatives targeted in the probe, said that either Schmitz never obtained statements from everyone at the GAB who had access to the Doe documents, or “one or more staff failed to disclose that they had the documents.” Schmitz, as a special prosecutor with an office at the GAB, should have known everyone with access to John Doe materials and where those materials were, Greim said.

“Until we are able to see those statements we cannot know whether the materials that are being taken from the GAB (Ethics Commission) are all the materials the GAB had,” Greim said.

“At the very least, it raises real questions about the care and safe-keeping of documents and compliance with these orders of the Supreme Court,” the attorney added.

Schmitz did not return a request for comment.

Also in the November affidavit, the special prosecutor noted that he had not received statements from some individuals with “secondary” access, or authorized access to John Doe materials.

“Those individuals include several judges who served on the Government Accountability Board,” Schmitz said. “I will supplement this information when those additional statements are obtained with an additional filing with the court.”

Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, a highly partisan Democrat, launched John Doe II in August 2012. The probe was effectively an extension of the original John Doe investigation into the Milwaukee County Executive’s Office in 2010, when Walker was county executive and as the Republican was in the thick of his run for governor.

The first John Doe resulted in six convictions, four of which had nothing to do with the original scope of the probe – theft from a county veterans fund. Walker’s staff first brought that  account discrepancy to the attention of the DA.

Chisholm, his assistants and the GAB developed a theory that merged express and issue advocacy in alleging that Walker’s campaign and the conservative groups engaged in illegal coordination. The theory was rejected by multiple courts, including the John Doe judge and, in July 2015, the state Supreme Court.

In the 4-2 opinion, the court said that Schmitz had engaged in a “perfect storm of wrongs” against citizens who did nothing wrong.

In the course of the probe, conservatives has their personal possessions seized in coordinated, predawn armed raids of their homes and offices. Prosecutors conducted a multi-year spying operation, grabbing up millions of documents through subpoenas of ISPs and other data providers. And they did it all under a gag order that forced targets and witnesses into secrecy on threat of hefty fines and jail times.

Late last year, Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel agreed to investigate leaks to The Guardian. The 1,300-plus pages of cherry-picked information again fed on the prosecutors’ theme of some kind of criminal scheme perpetrated by Walker’s campaign and conservative allies. Schimel said he may open a grand jury to pursue the leaks.

Last week, the investigation led to the Supreme Court clerk’s office.

The Journal Sentinel reported that DOJ agents on Feb. 1 collected documents from the Ethics Commission.

“We plan to be over approximately 11 a.m. tomorrow morning to retrieve the materials as discussed,” then-Deputy Solicitor General Daniel Lennington wrote to top Ethics Commission officials on Jan. 31, according to emails released to the newspaper in an open records request.

A spokesman for the attorney general told Wisconsin Watchdog the office does not comment on ongoing investigations.

Greim said the fact that GAB could still have John Doe documents raises serious questions about the security of the documents seized in an unconstitutional investigation.

“Every person and every group that had personal, confidential information seized should receive back a copy of the record of what was seized,” said the attorney, whose Kansas City, Mo., firm represents conservative Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth. “People should be able to know what of their personal information is at risk.”

Read Wisconsin Watchdog’s series, Wisconsin’s Secret War here

Part 385 of 383 in the series Wisconsin's Secret War

  is bureau chief of Wisconsin Watchdog and First Amendment Reporter for Kittle is a 25-year veteran of print, broadcast and online media. He is the recipient of several awards for journalism excellence from The Associated Press, Inland Press, the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association, and others. He is also a member of the Investigative Reporters & Editors Network. Kittle's extensive series on Wisconsin's unconstitutional John Doe investigations was the basis of a 2014 documentary on Glenn Beck's TheBlaze. His work has been featured in Town Hall, Fox News, NewsMax, and other national publications, and his reporting has been cited by news outlets nationwide. Kittle is a fill-in talk show host on the Jay Weber Show and the Vicki McKenna Show in Milwaukee and Madison.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Book Review: The Absent Superpower, The Shale Revolution and the World Without America.

By Rich Kozlovich

The Absent Superpower, The Shale Revolution and the World Without America, by Peter Zeihan is the second book by him I've read. The first was The Accidental Superpower: The Next Generation of American Preeminence which I reviewed here.  Both of these books are impressive.  Since then I've read, and published his articles, with permission, and seen some videos of his presentations.  All very impressive.  The man's clearly brilliant, well versed, well researched, and very good at presenting the information in a way that makes you want to read what he's saying. 

I've not seen analysis like this except in two places.  Stratfor news and the information put out by Dr. Jack Wheeler.  I've found he worked for Stratfor as the Vice President of Analysis and left to form his own company in 2012 called Zeihan on Geopolitics, which explains the similarities.

That was the appetizer, now for the main course. 

He proposes, and very well I might add, fracking has changed the geopolitical dynamics dramatically, and will continue to do so even more in the future.  His book starts out explaining fracking, how it's done, how it has improved technologically, and how the costs related to fracking have dropped to the point where prices being charged by Saudi Arabia will no longer matter.  Recently he publish an article showing how the figure he states in the book is now ever dramatically lower.  Fracking is changing the world, and he breaks this down into three sections.

In Part I, Shale New World, he describes how fracking works, and I've asked around, and for a layman he's spot on, except I don't think you can get a pipe to turn 90 degrees.  Otherwise - I now know more about fracking than I ever expected to.  For those of us who aren't all that interested in the techie stuff is a bit boring, but it's essential as foundation for the rest of the book.

Part II is called "The Disorder", which includes what he terms The Twilight War, the (Next) Gulf War, The Tanker War, The Sweet Sixteen and It's a Supermajor World. 

Part III is The American Play with chapters on "Tools of the Trade", "Dollar Diplomacy in Southeast Asia", "Dollar Diplomacy in Latin America" and "Shale New World". 

I'm totally impressed with the background research he's done on all the problems the world is facing.  For years I've understood the importance of geography and demography in the world geopolitics, but I never fully appreciated both until reading his books.  However, there are some caveats to my enthusiastic review.

First, he goes on to explain what a mess Putin is facing in Russia and then goes on to claim, without foundation, Putin has stashed billions of dollars no one knows about in order to attack Eastern Europe at some unknown time for some unknown reason. 

His analysis of what would happen if America walks away, leaving Europe to defend itself alone, is I think spot on, but in both books it's clear Russia is breeding itself out of existence, the economy is on the verge of collapse and their military is a mess with the exception of their special forces.  I see no earthly reason why Russia would want to attack anyone that would require a full out effort.  Furthermore, dictators don't stash money away to attack someone.  They do it to run away and live in luxury.  So why is the brilliant man saying this?  I will deal with that further.

His analysis of South America and Latin America is so well done it gives you an entirely different view of why these countries are where they are economically.   Because of South America's geography there is nowhere near the amount of trade you would expect among them, but neither have there been many wars.  His analysis as to future American diplomatic and economic policy to Latin and South America is eye opening. 

He's made it clear there's no other nation on the Earth that has the geographical advantages like the United States, assuring economic success, except Argentina, which in the 1920's was one of the richest nations on the Earth, until the socialists took over.   His work clearly demonstrates why countries who adopt socialist policies turn poor countries into cesspools and rich countries like Argentina into a mess.  It will be interesting to watch our Southern neighbors make major changes with regard to the United States, or face economic problems that will become insurmountable. 

All of Asia's problems will center around energy, transporting it safely, and where it's going to come from.  His analysis of China's military capability is impressive in demonstrating they're really good at putting on a big show, but the reality of their geography, demography, economics and a true evaluation of their military capability to impose their will outside their own nation is limited, including use of their naval forces.  Japan will become a much bigger player militarily in that arena when the U.S. becomes more - well, let's say judiciously isolationist.  In short - if there's no benefit there will be no involvement.  You may find Australia's role in all of this interesting, especially since he clearly believes American, Australian and New Zealand involvement won't deminish nearly as much as it will with the rest of the world.

I don't agree with is his views on Global Warming.  He states in the book some criticize him for being a liberal and some for being a conservative.  In explaining his views on Global Warming it demonstrates he's a liberal - he says so - which I find interesting since there are two things liberals hate more than anything.  History and facts, and he excels at both.

However, it explains his hard take on more Russian aggression, Global Warming and failing  to deal with the two most important movements in world events, the Muslim invasion into the west, and the efforts by the United Nations to create a one world government, and promoting the Anthropogenic Global Warming fruad is essential for them to attain that end.  All of which are tenets of current leftist theology.  He's too well researched and too intelligent to not be aware of all of this and the facts surrounding it all.  And I ask why would a man that brilliant be a liberal?

So do I recommend reading his book?  Absolutely! 

I would give it five stars on history, five stars on current events, five stars on analysis and four on conclusions.  When reading his books you will gain insights needed to understand why the world works the way it does, and allow you to become even more aware of how worthless the media really is.  After gaining those insights you can draw your own conclusions, and you may or may not choose to accept his.  However, there is one thing that really bugs me, there's no index in this book

But no matter, I think both of his books are - as they say on one of the TV movie channels -  "The Essentials".

Savages of Stockholm

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 6 Comments Thursday, February 23, 2017 @ Sultan Knish Blog
Europe has many fine traditions. Its newest tradition is the burning car. Why burn cars? Because, as George Mallory once said of mountains, they're there. There are lots of cars around and if you're a member of a perpetually unemployed tribe that wandered up north and forages on social services, you might as well do something to pass the time.

Burning houses is a lot of work and house fires spread. Car fires are simpler. In a welfare state
everyone has houses but not everyone has cars. Burning cars is a way to stick it to those who work for a living. It's also a way to drive off the members of the sickly Swedish tribe and claim the area for your own. And it's also fun.

Either you have a plan for buying a car or for burning a car. Considering the Muslim unemployment rates in Sweden, France and everywhere else, it's safe to say the car burners don't have future plans that involve saving up for a car or taking out a loan for a car or finding work. Cars are things that they steal, either the usual way or by defrauding social services. They might get a car by dealing drugs, but those cars are disposable. One day they'll have to burn them anyway.

If you're the product of an industrialized culture, then you think of a car as a product of work. You realize that it's the product of countless raw materials, that the metals had to be dug out of the earth, that the machines that make it had to be assembled and that men had to stand around putting that into place. And you might be one of those men. And if you aren't, then you might know someone who is.

But if you come from a pre-industrial culture which may have factories, PhDs and cars, but no sense of the connection between product, innovation and effort, then why not burn a car or a city? Things fall into the category of that which you and your family own... and that which they do not. Anything in the latter category may be stolen or vandalized because it has no value.

The notion of a painting in a museum or a scientific principle or an eagle soaring over a lake having value is an abstract notion to you. Value to you is your own identity. A painting is valuable if you own it. If it sits in a museum, then you can either steal it or burn down the museum. The principle is worthless unless you can cash in on it. The eagle is worthless unless you can kill it or identify with it.

Some people would call that savagery, but that sort of talk is politically incorrect. And we all know that there are no such things as savages. The true savages are the people who use scientific principles to make cars and then use the money to commission paintings of soaring eagles for museums because they are greedy exploiters of the planet. On the other hand, the noble savages whose herds of sheep and goats turn fertile land into desert, who burned the great libraries of civilization and who believe that the hair of women emits rays that passing airplanes have to be protected from are close to nature.

A car is just a metaphor. You drive it to work because you work somewhere. You drive it on family vacations because you don't get to spend enough time with your family because you and they are all doing things. You're not sitting around your house with your two wives and eleven kids plotting new ways to scam social services. You go places because you're still the product of a culture that likes the idea of new frontiers. Your car isn't exactly Columbus' flagship, but it takes you places. It's a sign of progress. That's why you own cars, instead of burning them.

Civilization is not a product, it's a process. You can't export it. You can ship a bunch of cars to Somalia, but you can't ship the process that makes a culture build a car. You can hand out PhD's to them based on knowledge and test taking skills, but you can't endow them with a respect for ideas. You can set up democratic elections in Afghanistan and Egypt, but you can't export the process that explains why the elections shouldn't be abolished after the side with the most guns wins.

That's just as true of a lot of the second and third generation immigrants who are no more Swedes than the South Africans became Africans or the English settlers of the American Colonies became Indians. They may own iPhones, dye their hair and listen to the same music that you do, but they often don't have the same assumptions. They bought the product, but not the process. They can drive cars and when they get bored, they can burn them, because they aren't their cars. They're your cars.

And the hair dye and the music and the democratic elections aren't theirs either. Those are things they took from you and if they get bored with them, they'll put on Hijabs, ban music and go back to tyranny, because what they have is a product, not a process. They walked into the movie in the middle and they like some of it, but it's confusing and they don't understand why the hero doesn't just shoot the villain in the head, take his woman and then raise a dozen children in his lair.

After the riots die down and the fires are put out, there will be more talk about integrating them, but what are they being integrated into; a culture that doesn't resist when their cars are torched? Why would they want to join a culture that leaves you unable to protect what is yours? Why would anyone join a culture that makes you so weak and impotent that anyone can come and take what belongs to you?

It's a movie that makes sense if you were there back in the 19th, but not if you suddenly walked in around 1965 or 1995. It's the outcome of a historical process that is hard to explain to people who were never part of the process. They know how the story came out, but not why it matters. And even if they could, their priorities are different. They didn't come here to meld into some gelatinous brotherhood of man but to make life better for their clans.

Most people plan for the future, they just do it in different ways. In Sweden, they plan to buy a car. In Iraq or Somalia, they plan to have eight kids. In Sweden, there isn't supposed to be a biological tribe anymore. Everyone is meant to belong to the progressive transnational tribe which lets you have the good things in life so long as you make some kind of vague commitment to pay more and share them with others. But the savages of Stockholm already have a tribe. And their tribe isn't big on sharing and is a lot more useful in a tight spot.

While the Swedes save up for cars, the Iraqis scam social services for their eight kids. And the demographics suggest that eight kids and no cars beats two cars and one child. Keep multiplying those numbers and the future will have fewer Swedes and fewer cars and a lot more bored Iraqi kids running through what used to be genteel suburbs looking for Swedes or cars to burn.

The native multiculturalists are post-tribal, but the multiple cultures settling there aren't. It's a war that can't be discussed except with the usual accusations of xenophobia and oppression. But those are useless crutches of dogma. They don't do much to restore a burned Audi. This is a conflict between cultures that make things and cultures that take them, between cultures that live for the moment and cultures that live for the next thousand years of manifest destiny.

The Western ideal has been reduced to a personal technocratic utopia built on efficiency and it has collided in the night with an Eastern ideal of the clan and a theocratic utopia built on total purity. That is the kind of conflict that the creed of good fences for good neighbors was meant for, but there are no fences tall enough to work it out within a single nation.

Both West and East have their own processes. And both processes are colliding. The Swedes bring their cars and the savages bring their flames. The burning cars are a metaphor for the impact of Muslim immigration on Sweden and the West.

'Chinagate' fundraiser feared Clintons would murder him Recorded secret video as 'insurance policy' in case he turned up dead


Stories of a Clinton death list have circulated online for years, but a Chinese-American businessman at the center of the infamous “Chinagate” scandal truly believed the Clintons would send a squad of assassins after him.

Johnny Chung, a Clinton fundraiser who was convicted of illegally funneling money from Chinese officials to the 1996 re-election campaign of Bill Clinton, filmed a secret, tell-all video in 2000 as an “insurance policy”in the event of his assassination, according to London’s Daily Mail.   He gave the secret footage to his friends and family, telling them to give it to the media if he turned up dead........ Read more

This N.C. billboard is angering drivers, who say it is sexist

See Article Here

UMich students demand no-whites-allowed space to plot ‘social justice’ activism

Mason Clark - The Kings College NYC    

A student activist group at the University of Michigan is demanding campus officials provide them with “a permanent designated space on central campus for Black students and students of color to organize and do social justice work.”

The demand is one of several lodged by “Students4Justice,” who this month ratcheted up campus demonstrations to pressure administrators to cave, complaining in a newly launched petition that President Mark Schlissel has snubbed their demands.

The clamor for a segregated space for students of color to organize social justice efforts comes even as the public university builds a $10 million center for black students and others in the center of campus........ students explain why the new multicultural student center is not enough, “because we want a space solely dedicated to community organizing and social justice work specifically for people of color.”.......“The same organization that criticizes the University for failing to create ‘an environment that engages in diversity, equity and inclusion,’ is calling upon the University to undermine these ideals by facilitating a sort of de facto segregation? One where space and resources are designated for students based solely on the color of their skin?” .....To Read More....

Friday, February 24, 2017

P&D: One Million and Counting

By Rich Kozlovich

At approximately 5:57 AM EST this morning P&D went over one million hits.  The number of hits per country run as follows:
  • United States, 544, 998
  • Germany, 58, 423
  • Russia, 52, 909
  • France, 35, 420
  • China ,22, 686
  • Ukraine, 21,942
  • Canada, 14, 863
  • Bulgaria, 12, 529
  • Slovenia, 10536
  • Ireland, 9,817
  • All other countries, 215,877
On a monthly basis the countries in the top ten change, and some not on this All Time top ten list are on the monthly, weekly or daily list.  I know this is no big deal compared to sites that get a million hits a day, but I'm pleased and based on e-mails I receive I believe I have a substantial number of what's called in the blogger world - "quality readers". 
Most of these numbers came in the last five years, and at this point I'm getting approximately 50,000 hits a month.  That number varies depending on how actively I post, but even when I have a bit of a hiatus and don't post at all - I don't get less than 10,000 hits a month. Not to bad for an autodidact bug man.
There are countries that surge based on issues, such as Bulgaria.  I ran links to a series of articles on fracking and Bulgarians started hitting P&D.   I ran a series of links on solar energy and Japan started hitting P&D, this was right after their nuke plant disaster.  China was never on the list at all and then about two years ago I started getting some hits and the number started climbing until they were number two almost overnight on the monthly list - every month for about a  year - and then the numbers crashed to almost nothing. 
I always had some hits from Russia, but at one point the hits started coming in hard and fast - and then crashed, and at the same time they dropped off for Ukraine.  At the beginning I got a lot of hits from the UK, that dropped over the years to the point they're not on the All Time top ten list. 
So why does any blog get hits?   I have no idea, except when it comes to blog sites over all nearly “80 percent read blogs because they offer news they can't find elsewhere. About 78 percent say blogs give them a better perspective, and about 66 percent say blogs provide them with news faster than other sites or media. The study found that blog readers are media hungry….”

I'm not striving to be a popularity site in that I don't do entertainment or sports, except I started posting about my Cleveland Browns a couple of years ago, but that became an emotion burden - one all Browns fans understand, and it was time consuming so I stopped and decided never to waste my time on sports or entertainment people and events unless it involved social issues.  
My efforts deal only with history and current events that impact our thinking and understanding.  I'm not only interested in what people should think - I'm concerned with presenting information to show people how to think. 
We need to understand - nothing we see on the news, what we read in the newspaper, on web sites or even the history channel, and in recent decades, what we're taught in history classes - is what it appears.  The media lies - yes Trump is right - the media lies.  Not so much outright lies of commission - although they're notorious for that - it's the lies of omission of which they're largely guilty.  That's the challenge - present the whole story without pride, prejudice or privilege. 
Truth is the sublime convergence of history and reality.  Everything we're told has an historical foundation and structure.  Everything we're told should bear some resemblance to reality.  If what's presented to us fails in either of these categories it's wrong!  All that's left to do is develop the intellectual response to explain why it's wrong.  That's what P&D is all about - the  truth! 
The truth isn't unkind - it's just the truth. 

P&D For February, 24, 2017

Commentary of the Day by James Dillingpole
Democrats, Leftists, et al