Showing posts with label Corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corruption. Show all posts

Thursday, July 18, 2024

Conspiracy theorists are at it again...

 

I've seen several claims that large quantities of shares in President Trump's social media network were "shorted" immediately prior to the assassination attempt against him on July 13.  The inference being drawn is that whoever did this must have had prior knowledge of the plot, and was poised to profit from its success.  Here's just one example of what I've been seeing.



However, few if any of those reporting the alleged short sales bothered to do their own research - they just rushed to repeat a rumor.

The Daily Dot reported more responsibly.


Investors in Trump Media ($DJT) believe that they can prove who had inside knowledge of the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump.

But most of their claims are based on misreading a document filed last week with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).

. . .

But claims that the puts were placed specifically right before the assassination don’t hold water. The filing is a report for a calendar year or quarter ending on June 30, which is the latest the puts could have been placed.

It’s possible firms shorted DJT on July 12, but reports revealing that are not currently available.


There's more at the link.

This always happens after a major crisis event like Saturday's.  Conspiracy theorists rush out of the woodwork to spread their slimy suspicions all over anything and anyone they can imagine.  They don't wait for the initial "fog" to clear, they don't bother to look for authoritative sources (in fact, they frequently quote each other as being authoritative, when all they are doing is rumor-mongering), and they aren't interested in the truth.

Folks, please be very careful where you get your news.  Far too many "independent" sources aren't worth the electrons it takes to get them to your computer or telephone screen.  At a time when a rumor might spark genuine violence, even murder, against political opponents, their deliberate inaccuracy and refusal to fact-check is criminally negligent, IMHO.

Peter


Sunday, July 14, 2024

The assassination attempt on President Trump

 

I've said nothing yet in these pages about yesterday's attempted assassination of former President Trump.  I won't have anything substantial to say until more information is available - and that may be some time in being made available.  I certainly don't trust the FBI to conduct a reliable, impartial, non-partisan investigation.  As Rep. Thomas Massie tweeted this morning:



Quite so.  I said some years ago that "The FBI can no longer be trusted in any way, shape or form".  I've seen nothing since then to make me change that opinion - rather the opposite, in fact.

And what about the abysmally poor security coverage of President Trump?  How, precisely, could a man with a clearly visible and identifiable rifle climb onto a rooftop only a few hundred feet from him, take aim, and fire several shots before being neutralized?  How did he penetrate the secure perimeter that should have been in place for several hundred yards around the venue?  Failure of security, much?

In years past, before being elected President, Trump hired a very efficient and effective Israeli security company to handle that sort of thing.  Perhaps he should do so again, to remind the Secret Service how it's done.  They appear to have forgotten.

Then there's this allegation.  It may be a complete fabrication - we don't know yet, and I've seen nothing to confirm it - but I'd love to know whether the shooter was observed by President Trump's security detail before he pulled the trigger, and if so, why none of them stopped him before he could do so.  Was permission to shoot denied?  If so, by whom?  And why?  And who told the leader(s) of his security team what to do under such circumstances?



As for all the calls for restraint from so-called "moderates" and the progressive/liberal/left-wing half of US politics . . . no.  Simply "No."  When the only candidate who offers anything to "constitutional Americans" - those who support our traditional values, who reject the political, social, economic and cultural "norms" of the Obama and Biden administrations - is targeted, so are all of us who want the same things.  I personally don't like the thought of a sometimes vulgar, sometimes obsessive, loudly outspoken President Trump in charge of the country again:  but if (as it currently appears) he's the only candidate who's prepared to dismantle the administrative "deep state" and restore our country to something at least approximating "government of the people, by the people and for the people", he'll have my vote every day and twice on Sundays.  I have nothing left about which to be moderate, because every time our side tries moderation, the other side grabs more power and refuses to relinquish it.  If it takes a morning star to beat some sense into their heads, I'll buy one, gift-wrap it and personally hand it to President Trump, along with a bouquet of roses and a smile.  The time for moderation just went out the window.

Several bloggers have been expecting an attempt on President Trump's life, and I've foreseen the possibility in several previous posts in these pages.  Yesterday, all of us were proven correct.  The only question now remaining is whether this was merely one facet of a much wider, deeper and more sinister plot.  Was it a "lone wolf" acting on his own?  Or was it the harbinger of many more such attempts, each fostered and encouraged by a progressive left wing of US politics (and its "deep state" allies) that will do literally anything to stop President Trump from being elected to a second term in office?  And will the FBI and Secret Service, both very much a part of the "deep state" and therefore tainted by association, offer more effective (and trustworthy) protection to him?  I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of that . . .

Finally, the assassination attempt has "rattled the cages" of vast numbers of Americans who thought it couldn't happen here.  Clearly, it could - and it has.  The result?  As SGAmmo, my favorite ammunition supplier, pointed out in its latest advertising flyer, published today:


It is safe to say the next rush to buy ammo is here. As I have talked about in past emails, the lion's share of the volume in the ammunition business is based on hoarding and panic buying, not consumption, and demand is such cases is a fear-driven. Yesterday, due to the tragic events, we saw order volume increase by about 2000%, 20 times recent normal from around 6pm CST to 11pm when I stopped monitoring the flow for the night. Order volume then sustain massive elevation through the night and into this morning ... Yesterday, we saw several  of our so-called 'competitors' raise prices almost instantly, especially on 5.56/223, and as of so far we have not increased any prices, however please consider this notice that there may be upward movement in the days ahead unless demand settles quickly.


Clearly, many US citizens understand that in uncertain times, you'd better have ammunition with which to respond to any threat requiring it.  As the old saying goes, "it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it".

I've got mine.  I hope you've got yours.  Keep it handy.

Peter


Tuesday, July 9, 2024

"Don't buy a house built in 2024"

 

That's the message from a construction worker in a video that I came across on Twitter/X.  It's less than two minutes long, and worth watching.  PROFANITY ALERT:  The speaker isn't afraid to drop F-bombs all over the place, but that doesn't make his message any less worthwhile.

Basically, the construction worker shows us the shoddy materials and workmanship that can be found in almost all modern construction, due largely (he says) to the fact that better materials often aren't available.  As he points out, once everything's assembled and hidden behind siding, we'll never know how poor the quality is - until something goes wrong, or something fails, and we have to pay for repairs.

If he's right, the entire construction industry right now appears to be a giant rip-off.  I don't see how it can be that bad everywhere, because it would surely have become a national scandal by now;  but I'm prepared to believe that it's that bad in certain areas, or involving certain products.  That being the case, forewarned is fore-armed.

Go watch the video, and learn.

Peter


A real election nightmare

 

James Howard Kunstler imagines the unthinkable:


Finally, there’s the novelty solution to this fine mess: “Joe Biden” stays in the race, bumps Kamala, installs Barack Obama in the veep candidate slot, they romp, then somewhere around January 21, 2025, “JB” bows out. . . and cazart! It’s back to the Good ol’ days with President Obama again! What a play!  Genius! You see, the 22nd Amendment only says: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. Doesn’t say anything about getting elected veep and then being elevated to president by happenstance. If that doesn’t save our democracy, I don’t know what will.


A nightmare prospect indeed!  That'll make it Obama's fourth term, because he's effectively been in command all the way through Biden's first . . .



Peter


Friday, July 5, 2024

Again I say it: There is NO, repeat, NO trustworthy news coming out of the Ukraine war...

 

... unless and until you verify it through at least half a dozen reliable (well, as reliable as possible) sources.  I don't care whether Ukraine or Russia is claiming something:  they're all lying.

The latest example is the "scandal" over Ukraine leader Zelensky's wife's alleged purchase of a Bugatti sports car.  It was made up out of whole cloth by Russian propaganda sources.  You can read all about it in this BBC report, which shows how it was created and disseminated, and why it's "fake news".

I've gotten to the point where, if I know that a news report originated from one or the other side's official sources, I automatically disbelieve it.  The only people I'll listen to are those that use independent sources (particularly satellite imagery, reports from people on the ground who've established a reputation for reliability, and so on).  If they report and/or confirm something, all well and good.  If they don't . . . fuggetaboutit.

The same goes for video clips of fighting in the area.  We've seen "recycled" video footage dating back years, even decades, purporting to show atrocities.  I'm sure there are some real clips among them, but when it's so difficult to verify any of them, why waste time trusting them?  Given modern technology and editing facilities, the camera can - and does - lie like a trooper.

Trouble is, too many of our legislators believe - or pretend to believe - such biased sources, and use them to justify voting for a few dozen billion dollars more for Ukraine, or more sanctions against Russia.  They don't want to know the truth, because if they did (and their constituents did) they'd be voted out of office for being spendthrift wasters of taxpayer dollars.  US veterans need health care?  Victims of natural disasters in our country need help to recover?  None of that matters as much as funneling more of our dollars into the bottomless pit of the Ukraine war - not to mention the few billion here and there that get kicked back to our politicians as a "Thank you!" for their compliance.

One of the nicest things about President Trump's term of office was that he didn't get America involved in any more foreign adventures;  in fact, he pulled a lot of US troops out of areas they had no need to be, and brought them home.  That alone offers good grounds to vote for him next time round, IMHO.

Peter


Monday, July 1, 2024

This gets to the heart of the matter

 

I'm long since sick of the talking heads that are yammering on about the Biden-Trump debate last week.  The essential elements could be figured out by anyone with two working brain cells (or even less) in a few minutes.  Nobody yet knows how it'll work out (although it promises to be a cross between a tortured melodrama and a laugh-a-minute yuckfest finding out).

There's one commenter who seems to have his finger on the political pulse of last week's encounter.  Speaking in Australia at a conservative conference, Tucker Carlson had this to say.  Even if you've seen or heard bits of it before, it's worth taking nine minutes out of your day to hear it again.




I wasn't very enamored of President Trump's performance last week either.  Bombastic, sometimes shrill, sometimes childish, sometimes downright dishonest . . . he did not come across as presidential, I'm afraid (at least, not by my somewhat old-fashioned standards).  Nevertheless, if the choice is between him and President Biden, I think most of us will line up behind him.

Unless . . . we could persuade Tucker Carlson to offer himself as a candidate?

I'm not sure that would be a good idea;  Carlson is invaluable as an honest, no-holds-barred observer of the scene and a trenchant commenter.  We need him doing his present job, and calling the rest of our political establishment to account (frequently).  Nevertheless . . . what if we had a mind like his in charge - whether from the left or the right, I don't care - taking a long, unafraid look at the catastrophe which is our federal government at present, rolling up his sleeves, and starting in on the cleanup?

Tempting thought . . .

Peter


Saturday, June 29, 2024

Further thoughts on the Biden candidacy

 

Yesterday I said:


I can only presume that the Democratic Party, knowing his health to be so poor as to preclude re-election, has been frantically looking for any way to remove President Biden from the election ticket, and possibly from his current office as well ... Biden's handlers almost literally threw him to the political wolves last night.


After reading many more comments about Thursday's debate, from both sides of the political aisle, I'm even more sure I was right.  I can't see any reason for the Democratic Party to allow a semi-senile President Biden to debate a former President Trump unless it was to provide a clear demonstration of the former's disastrous state of mental health.  Having exhausted most of their other options to replace him with a better candidate for November's election, they're now effectively providing the ammunition for his enemies - aided and abetted behind the scenes by Obama loyalists, who have in effect been running the Biden administration since its beginning - to remove him for them.

The trouble is, too many people seem to have forgotten one critical point.  President Biden has already won the Democratic Party's nomination to be its Presidential candidate in 2024.  That can't simply be ignored.  If he refuses to go, his party has almost no way left - in the time available - to legally replace him on the ballot with someone else.  If President Biden, angered and frustrated at the way he's being treated by his party, turns on them and rejects their demand that he resign, there's not much they can legally do about it in terms of internal party politics.

That leaves the available options as the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, and/or some other major health crisis.  Congress can order the President's removal under the 25th Amendment:  or, alternatively, if President Biden falls seriously ill or is injured by whatever cause, his Vice-President may be able to take over his office until (if?) he recovers.  That, in turn, might provide at least some legal justification to replace him as the candidate in November.

However, the latter case raises yet another issue.  I can't see Kamala Harris willingly resigning the Vice-Presidency;  and if she doesn't, she automatically becomes President if anything happens to her current boss.  That would, in turn, give her a relatively strong case to go into the November election as the incumbent, with all the advantages that provides to a candidate.  Sure, she's even more unpopular on a national basis than are most potential candidates to replace President Biden;  but she's got the inside track, and in the absence of a suitably tempting "carrot" to give it up, she probably won't be afraid to use it.

That brings up another factor favoring Kamala Harris.  We've never had a woman President.  If she succeeds to President Biden's office, she can claim to have "shattered the glass ceiling" keeping women out of the top spot (much as Hillary Clinton tried to claim during the 2016 election).  That might galvanize parts of the Democratic Party base who are currently wavering in their loyalty to the political establishment.  Yes, her personal unpopularity would still be a factor in the election, but (IMHO) less so in the presence of that reality.  She can argue that much of the former is due to men wanting to keep women down.  There might even be an element of truth in that perspective, given the sheer nastiness displayed by some of our politicians.

I have no idea what will happen.  I guess most of us don't.  However, behind the scenes, the unseen powers manipulating both political parties are making deals, calling the shots, and getting ready to impose their preferred solution on the rest of us.  I won't be surprised to see at least some of the following measures over the next month or two, not necessarily in this order.

  • Biden digs in his heels and resists calls to resign.
  • Congress invokes the 25th Amendment to force him out of office.  If confronted with a fait accompli, will Biden resign rather than be removed?  Is he still capable of making such a decision?  There's a distinct chance that things could turn nasty, and very publicly at that.
  • While that's going on, frantic negotiations take place behind the scenes to select a more electable candidate for November.
  • Kamala Harris might be allowed to take over the Presidency on a short-term basis (thereby "ensuring her place in history" by allowing her to claim that she "broke the glass ceiling" for all who follow her), but on the understanding she will not be the Democratic Party candidate for the position in November.  She'll demand, and almost certainly receive, a substantial quid pro quo for her cooperation.  Perhaps, if Gavin Newsom becomes the presidential candidate, she could take his place as Governor of California for a term?  I'm sure she'd also become considerably wealthier if she cooperated.  If she doesn't cooperate?  Well . . . accidents happen . . .
  • While all this is going on, I'm sure there will be immense resources devoted to finding the most electable Democratic Party candidate for November 2024.  Who that might be remains to be seen.  I daresay that, of the names currently in (public) play, Gavin Newsom and Michelle Obama are the front-runners;  but either will have to give up a lot of the power they've currently amassed among their existing supporters if they're to run.  Will they be prepared to do so?  And will enough Americans, already sickened and frustrated by the political corruption in both of their backgrounds, be willing to put aside their distaste and vote for them?
  • Finally, can the security, fairness and honesty of the November 2024 election be sustained?  Many have their doubts.  Others insist that there's no evidence of any attempt to fiddle with the results.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Will any of those things happen, or not?  In what sequence?  What else might happen?  Let's hear your forecasts in Comments.

Peter


Thursday, June 27, 2024

Media lies and misinformation - conservative edition

 

Yesterday we saw headlines like these about a Supreme Court ruling.  Click the links to read the articles.



They sound alarming to those of us who view Big Brother with intense suspicion, and see the courts as avoiding their constitutional responsibilities by failing to rein in said brother when necessary.  However, as worded, they are not true.  The Supreme Court made no such decision and no such ruling.  What really happened was rather simpler (although, to my mind, still not satisfactory):


In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue - as opposed to tossing the case on merit - just like the vast majority of election fraud cases which didn't make it past lower courts.


There's more at the link.

We may dislike it when a court decision goes in favor of the progressive left, and cheer when the opposite happens - but we're allowing our partisan likes and fears to color our understanding of the truth.  To claim that the Supreme Court yesterday allowed federal government censorship of social media is simply not true.  The fact that SCOTUS' decision allows a questionable relationship between government and social media to continue in certain forms unless and until plaintiffs with standing to sue take up the matter does not mean that it's legal, and does not mean that any illegal acts committed until a ruling is given can't be prosecuted.

That's why we have courts.  That's why we try to implement the rule of law, rather than partisan political perspectives, in our society.  The courts are supposed to prevent excesses, stop legal violations, and punish those that occur.  If they acted in an arbitrary, opinionated way instead of within the framework of the rule of law, the courts themselves would be untrustworthy - as partisan as the legislative branch of government, in fact.  We've seen in recent weeks how some of our courts appear to be precisely that, in cases against former President Trump in New York.  Even liberal/progressive judicial authorities have joined the chorus of disapproval and anger against such visibly partisan proceedings, and are calling for them to be overturned.  The outrage, the bias, is so blatant that I hope and trust the New York courts will be stopped in their tracks - but that has to happen through the legal system, not because those with one political viewpoint "win" over those with another.  If we stopped those cases by employing legally questionable tactics, just like those who "won" them, we'd be as guilty as they are of corrupting the law to serve partisanship.

I don't like yesterday's decision.  I don't like anything that gives the executive branch of government any form of censorship or control over news and social media.  I hope any and all such things will be systematically dealt with in future.  However, that will only happen if those who do have standing to challenge them, raise such a challenge.  Instead of moaning because partisan political perspectives (look at the political views of the challengers yesterday) were not able to impose their viewpoint on those of a different perspective, why don't we encourage the judicial (and, if necessary, the legislative) branches of government to clarify the laws and standards involved, so that loopholes are blocked and those with standing to intervene are defined more clearly?

When any side tries to manipulate, obfuscate or adumbrate the law for partisan advantage, we all stand in danger.  Let's not allow our own passions to lead us astray.




True dat.

Peter


Friday, May 31, 2024

The Trump verdict

 

I note that President Trump has just been found guilty of posing an existential threat to the progressive left of American politics.  That's all yesterday's verdict amounted to.  A more rigged, biased, unfair trial I've never seen before - and I've seen some in the Third World that would curdle your whey.  This wasn't just a kangaroo court - it was the rule of menagerie law, a bunch of monkeys screaming themselves hoarse and flinging dung in all directions.  The entire American justice system is diminished by it.  One can only hope that appellate courts - and, if necessary, the Supreme Court - will undo the damage Judge Merchan has done . . . but they'll never remove its stain from our judicial record.

Tucker Carlson put it in a nutshell.



If President Trump is incarcerated, I think there will be an attempt to "do unto him" as was done unto Jeffrey Epstein.  The left simply dare not permit him to win re-election, because they know all of their sins of the past election and all the damage they've done to America since then will be visited upon their heads, and then some.  He is too dangerous to them for them to allow him to be re-elected.

If President Trump does die behind bars, or is otherwise assassinated . . . all hell may break loose.  Brace yourselves - and pray for his safety and security.

Peter


Tuesday, May 28, 2024

The legal shenanigans being employed to convict President Trump

 

The partisan political nature of the prosecution of President Trump on so many charges, in so many venues, is beyond any doubt whatsoever.  That's made clear by the preliminary instructions to the jury in New York.


To find Trump guilty of felony-level falsification of business documents, the jury must unanimously find that Trump falsified the documents in order to commit or conceal a separate crime. But the jurors do not all have to agree on what that separate crime was, Justice Juan Merchan ruled.

. . .

In other words: If some jurors believe that Trump falsified business documents solely to cover up a tax crime, while others believe that he falsified business documents solely to cover up an election crime, the jury can still convict Trump on the felony-level falsifying-documents charges, despite disagreeing on the predicate crimes.


There's more at the link.

This is beyond belief.  It demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever the complete and utter disregard for the law that we see in Judge Merchan's courtroom.  Consider:

  • In order to be convicted, one must be found guilty of a specific crime.
  • The jury instruction above tells jurors that they don't have to agree on what specific crime was committed.  In other words, President Trump might not be convicted of a specific crime at all (because that would require a jury verdict to that effect).
  • However, despite there being no specific conviction, the jury will be allowed to find President Trump guilty of falsifying documents in order to conceal a specific crime.
  • But . . . if no specific crime was committed (and, in the absence of a jury ruling to that effect, that will be the legal reality) then how can President Trump be convicted of falsifying documents to conceal a crime?  If the act is not specified, and no conviction is handed down, then in legal terms he is not guilty of any crime, and therefore there is no crime to conceal.

This is so bizarre it defies belief.  Any half-way competent lawyer can see that in a heartbeat.

The judge's conduct is well summed up by former Professor Alan Dershowitz:


This judge has committed more reversible errors in the one day I was in the courtroom than I’ve seen in years and years of practicing law. It’s just an outrage,” Dershowitz stated.


I think that if President Trump is convicted by this kangaroo court under such pretexts, it will virtually guarantee his victory in the November 2024 elections . . . if his enemies allow him to live that long.  If he's incarcerated on such flimsy grounds, one can only assume that it's to create the conditions under which he might suffer a terminal "accident" or "assault" in prison, to finally remove any possibility of his winning re-election.  Frankly, I wouldn't put that past his political enemies.  Their desperation to derail his campaign is beyond clear.

As always, I note that I am not a fan of President Trump, and I'd prefer a more balanced candidate in November.  However, that's beside the point.  Whatever one's views of President Trump, the fact that he's being treated like this by our so-called impartial, balanced judicial system is cause for the deepest concern.



Peter


Tuesday, May 14, 2024

Remember what I said about the FBI?

 

A few years ago I wrote an article titled "The FBI can no longer be trusted in any way, shape or form".  Given the latest news about the shenanigans of the General Services Administration, I'm thinking that warning should be applied to the entire federal bureaucracy, not just the FBI or the Justice Department.  Second City Cop reports:


So the feebs brought along props, used them in "evidence" photographs, then leaked the photos to the media. Laughable. And now it turns out that all those boxes of "classified" documents were:

  • actually in the possession of the General Services Administration;
  • packed by the GSA;
  • delivered to Trump by the GSA;
  • who then "tipped off" the feebs about supposed "classified" info.

. . . 

Even a third-world banana republic is more competent framing people that this outfit.


There's more at the link, including a link to another article providing further details.

I hope there will one day be an in-depth investigation into any and every government employee, department, agency and entity involved in the ongoing quasi-legal persecution of President Trump, with condign punishment meted out to everyone responsible for such shenanigans.  That's unlikely to happen under a Democratic Party administration, but there's always a chance that might change - one way or another.



Peter


Wednesday, May 1, 2024

A politician I'd love to see in office in this country

 

I can get behind President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador whole-heartedly.  We recently discussed his crackdown on narco and gang violence in his country, leading to his re-election with an overwhelming majority of the vote.

His next step?


The 'unapologetic dictator' and 43rd President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele launched an anti-corruption investigation into the entire executive branch of his government. Just like Anil Kapoor-starrer Bollywood movie 'Nayak', the businessman turned politician ordered every single official to gather in an assembly, where he announced the decision to inquire them for bribery. The move is seen as a strike against graft back home in the Central American nation.

The video of Bukele asking the Attorney General to investigate the entire executive branch including the cabinet members for corruption has gone viral online. The faces of the officials sitting and gathered at the assembly could tell that they were shocked and taken aback by the move.


There's more at the link.  You'll find a video recording of President Bukele making his announcement here.

I love it!  It would be marvelous if we could do the same thing in Washington D.C., not to mention every one of our fifty State capitals.  The only problem would be to find enough uncorrupted investigators to do the work!



Peter


A tad careless of them, wouldn't you say?

 

The BBC reports that Colombia's armed forces are missing a whole bunch of ammunition and weapons.


Colombia's military has lost millions of bullets, thousands of grenades and several missiles, the nation's president has said.

Gustavo Petro ... said the missing items came to light during surprise visits to two military bases - Tolemaida and La Guajira - on 12 February and 1 April, respectively.

At Tolemaida, there was a shortfall of more than 808,000 bullets and nearly 10,000 fewer grenades than the inventory listed on official records.

Meanwhile at La Guajira, the discrepancies included nearly 4.2 million bullets and more than 9,300 grenades. Mr Petro also said the base had lost two Spike missiles, 37 Nimrod missiles and 550 rocket-propelled grenades.

He told reporters that the military supplies would have been passed on to armed groups within Colombia, but could have been smuggled to Haiti or the international black market.


There's more at the link.

I'm sure the personnel at those military bases were delighted (NOT!) to have snap inspections of their facilities, giving them no warning and leaving them no time to cover up the missing items.  I'm sure many of them made a lot of money by diverting them to weapons smugglers.  I hope it'll be enough to compensate them for the years in prison that will likely be coming their way.

That sort of chicanery is a real problem in the drug wars.  Mexico's cartels are armed with full-auto military weapons that they've largely obtained from the Mexican armed forces and those in countries to the south.  When they have so much money at their disposal, it's not difficult to bribe those in charge of the weapons to turn a blind eye to wholesale theft.  Trouble is, those cartels then turn their weapons against their own authorities, and against the US as well in the form of ambushes directed against the Border Patrol, Customs officers and other law enforcement personnel.  Many such weapons have been found smuggled into this country, and in the possession of local cartel distributors.  The latest one I heard of amounted to more than 20 full-auto assault rifles, more than 100 magazines and over 5,000 rounds of ammunition, plus several hand-grenades and a rocket launcher.  That's enough to give any local police force conniption fits.  They're severely outgunned.

Of course, the gun-grabbers' answer is to blame private firearms owners for "allowing" their guns to be stolen, or selling them to the cartels.  That's largely not the case.  Private owners seldom own full-auto weapons, and almost never explosive devices.  Those are sourced from corrupt militaries more than anywhere else.  It's not a comfortable thought that law-abiding citizens like you and I might have to face up to criminals armed in that fashion.  I feel outgunned already.




Peter


Thursday, April 25, 2024

The headline says it all

 

From Sundance at The Last Refuge:



There's far too much "meat on the bone" for me to quote a lot of excerpts from it and expect them to make sense.  Nevertheless, this is critically important reading if you want to understand how the Department of Justice is abusing the legal system of the United States to fraudulently target a politician.  It makes for horrendous reading.

If you want to sum up the critical point of the article, it's this:


The raid on Mar-a-Lago was a retrieval effort where the DOJ/FBI were looking for evidence of their misconduct that Donald Trump may have taken with him after his time in office.

. . .

The special counsel was looking for documents held by Donald Trump that touched on declassification and/or pertained to John Durham and Crossfire Hurricane.   They were looking for documentary evidence against them that Trump may have held (he did and likely still does).

. . .

Mary McCord, Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen are using “national security” as a tool to subvert and control the judicial branch while railroading President Trump.


There's much more at the link.  I strongly suggest that it's worth reading it all.

This is why I've said before, and I'll say again here, that I don't expect a free and fair election this November.  The Democratic Party and the Deep State appear bound and determined to remove former President Trump's name from the ballot through criminal conviction, any way they have to;  and if he does run, they want to blacken his name as a "convicted criminal" to such an extent that at least some of his supporters won't vote for him.  Frankly, I agree with some observers who predict that President Trump may be assassinated by his opponents, rather than allow him to take office again.  They hate and fear him that much.

I might add that I'm not a member of President Trump's fan club.  I have serious doubts over his fitness to fill another term as President;  his age is definitely a factor, as is his brash outspokenness.  However, those factors don't prevent me from recognizing that he is, indeed, being railroaded by the misuse of our criminal justice system.  That's deadly dangerous to our republic.  If the powers that be can do that to President Trump, and get away with it, then what's to stop future powers that be doing it to anyone and everyone else they don't like?

Peter


All the propaganda that's fit to print

 

Last weekend the New York Times published an opinion piece titled "Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe".  It's filled with ridiculous platitudes about how new "safeguards" in the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in particular Section 702, will protect Americans from intrusive overreach while simultaneously protecting us from evil and all that sort of thing.  Those platitudes are nonsensical, as the article itself points out even while spouting them.


Civil libertarians argued that the surveillance bill erodes Americans’ privacy rights and pointed to examples when American citizens got entangled in investigations. Importantly, the latest version of the bill adds dozens of legal safeguards around the surveillance in question — the most expansive privacy reform to the legislation in its history. The result preserves critical intelligence powers while protecting Americans’ privacy rights in our complex digital age.

. . .

It is also true that the F.B.I. has broken the rules around these 702 database checks repeatedly in recent years. Agents ran improper queries related to elected officials and political protests. The wiretaps of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, also involved numerous violations of FISA rules. The Page wiretaps involved traditional FISA orders, not Section 702, but the bureau’s many errors there raised understandable doubts about whether it can be trusted to comply with other FISA rules.

. . .

The bill passed by Congress contains numerous reforms that will dramatically improve compliance. It sharply limits the number and ranks of F.B.I. agents who can run 702 queries, imposes strict penalties for misconduct and expands oversight by Congress and the courts.


There's more at the link.

It's so stupid it would almost be comical, if it weren't so serious.  Yes, we admit that the FBI and other authorities have for years ignored all the safeguards and legal restrictions built into the FISA process:  but the renewal legislation adds more safeguards and legal restrictions, which we're sure the FBI will not abuse this time!  Really!  We promise!  Pinky swear!

We've seen the uncovering of the festering morass of corruption that has come to dominate our intelligence services over the years, turning them into instruments of political oppression rather than public safety.  We've covered some of that information in these pages.  If you've somehow missed it, Sundance has a long and very informative article covering the subject, which you should read carefully from start to finish.  It's all true.

I hate to have to say that, because I too served in the Department of Justice.  I was medically retired almost twenty years ago, at a time when the DOJ still emphasized justice rather than political correctness.  I still associate with others who were "old-school" DOJ, who regarded the constitution and laws of this country as paramount rather than the partisan perspectives of any political party.  However, the DOJ today appears to have almost completely lost that focus.  The persecution of President Trump, and the victimization of the January 6 protesters, are just the best-known examples of how the Department has been politicized and weaponized.  There are many more.

I've said before that "The FBI can no longer be trusted in any way, shape or form".  Tucker Carlson has pointed out that "There's a reason the public's confidence in the FBI has plummeted".  Dozens, if not scores and hundreds, of observers, commenters and experts have come to the same conclusion . . . yet the Gray Lady still has no problem playing the propaganda shill for that organization.

So much for journalistic ethics.  I wonder if the authors of that opinion piece know the meaning of that term?



Peter


Thursday, April 11, 2024

So much for sinking islands...

 

Remember the kerfuffle raised by climate change activists over the past three or four decades, alleging that many island chains would soon be submerged beneath the waves due to rising sea levels?

Not so fast . . .


The Guardian was in fine form last June stating that rising oceans will extinguish more than land. “It will kill entire languages,” it added, noting the effect on Pacific islands such as Tuvalu. Those areas of the Earth that were most hospitable to people and languages are now becoming the “least hospitable”.

Silly emotional Guardianista guff of course, but happily it does not seem to apply to Tuvalu. A recent study found that the 101 islands of Tuvalu had grown in land mass by 2.9%. The scientists observed that despite rising sea levels, many shorelines in Tuvalu and neighbouring Pacific atolls have maintained relative stability, “without significant alteration”. A comprehensive re-examination of data on 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls with 709 islands found that none of them had lost any land. Furthermore, the scientists added, there are data that indicate 47 reef islands expanded in size or remained stable over the last 50 years, “despite experiencing a rate of sea-level rise that exceeds the global average”.

The Maldives is also a poster scare for rising sea levels, with the attention-seeking activist Mark Lynas – he of the nonsense claim that 99.9% of scientists agree humans cause all or most climate change – organising an underwater Cabinet meeting of the local Government in 2009. As it happens, the Maldives is one of a number of areas that have seen recent increases in land mass. Other areas include the Indonesian Archipelago, islands along the Indochinese Peninsula coast, and islands in the Red and Mediterranean Seas. Notably, the  coastal waters of the Indochinese Peninsula had the most substantial gain, with an increase of 106.28 km2 over the 30-year period. Of the 13,000 islands examined, the researchers found that only around 12% had experienced a significant shoreline shift, with almost equal numbers experiencing either landward (loss) or seaward (gain) movement.

. . .

Sea level rise is not a “predominant” cause of the changing coasts, the scientists note.


There's more at the link.

I find it interesting that the climate change alarmists made claims such as "submerged islands!", then insisted that there was no time to waste, we had to act now, and we had to throw millions (if not billions) of dollars at the problem to "protect vulnerable populations", as well as damage our own economies by cutting back on anything and everything that might contribute to rising sea levels.  When research over several years (in some cases, decades) has now proved that their claims were wrong, they're conspicuous by their deafening silence.  All the money they gouged out of politically correct governments and "woke" corporations . . . what good did it do?  Where did it go?  Who benefited most from it?  No good asking those questions;  they won't answer them - but we all know where the money came from that's kept them employed and living comfortably - some would say high on the hog - all this time.

Almost the entire climate change industry is based on pseudo-scientific twaddle.  Go watch the video report at that link.  It's the truth.

Peter


Tuesday, April 2, 2024

Very interesting... but where are the details???

 

It seems that visitors to Jeffery Epstein's island may not have been as anonymous as they might wish.


NEARLY 200 MOBILE devices of people who visited Jeffrey Epstein’s notorious “pedophile island” in the years prior to his death left an invisible trail of data pointing back to their own homes and offices. Maps of these visitations generated by a troubled international data broker with defense industry ties, discovered last week by WIRED, document the numerous trips of wealthy and influential individuals seemingly undeterred by Epstein’s status as a convicted sex offender.

The data amassed by Near Intelligence, a location data broker roiled by allegations of mismanagement and fraud, reveals with high precision the residences of many guests of Little Saint James, a United States Virgin Islands property where Epstein is accused of having groomed, assaulted, and trafficked countless women and girls.

Some girls, prosecutors say, were as young as 14. The former attorney general of the US Virgin Islands alleged that girls as young as 12 were trafficked to Epstein by those within his elite social circle.

The coordinates that Near Intelligence collected and left exposed online pinpoint locations to within a few centimeters of space. Visitors were tracked as they moved from the Ritz-Carlton on neighboring St. Thomas Island, for instance, to a specific dock at the American Yacht Harbor—a marina once co-owned by Epstein that hosts an “impressive array” of pleasure boats and mega-yachts. The data pinpointed their movements as they were transported to Epstein’s dock on Little St. James, revealing the exact routes taken to the island.

The tracking continued after they arrived. From inside Epstein's enigmatic waterfront temple to the pristine beaches, pools, and cabanas scattered across his 71-acres of prime archipelagic real estate, the data compiled by Near captures the movements of scores of people who sojourned at Little St. James as early as July 2016. The recorded surveillance concludes on July 6, 2019—the day of Epstein’s final arrest.


There's more at the link.

Unfortunately, the article does not identify any of the devices by its owner.  I don't know why not - I mean, it's not as if they're alleging that the owners of those devices actually did anything illegal, immoral or fattening, is it?  All they could say with any certainty is that on a given date, that device - presumably in the possession of its owner - was on Epstein's island, and took a known, traceable route to and from the island.  That's not actionable in any way . . . at least, not yet.

One suspects that the owners of those devices have already taken steps to destroy them and "fudge" the records, to suggest that a subordinate or an employee was actually using them at the time.  I'd love to have been a fly on the wall to listen to the panicked conversations when the Wired article was first published.

It's a complete and utter disgrace that not a single name from Epstein's "little black book" has been published so far.  The authorities have been in possession of the names of visitors to his island for years - in some cases, decades.  Their refusal to release them strongly suggests as much of a cover-up as claims that Epstein committed suicide in prison.  (If you believe the latter, I have this bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, NYC.  It's a real bargain!  Cash only, please, and in small used bills.)

Despite this official intransigence, I hope that the names will one day become known.  One hopes against hope that it will be soon enough to make it possible to bring any guilty parties to justice.



Peter


Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Sounds like a good idea to me. How about doing the same here?

 

There's pressure in Germany to stop economic migrants sending money back to their countries of origin.


Every year, migrants and refugees transfer billions of euros from Germany to family members in their home countries, with the Bundesbank estimating this to be at least €6.8 billion per year.

Now, some German political parties want to crack down on this development, with the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) seeking to “reduce poverty migration to zero” with restrictions on cash payments and social benefits.

Some of the money sent abroad is earned from work, but a substantial amount is likely from social welfare payments transferred to migrants, who then send it out of the country to support their families across the world. Since many of these social welfare benefits are distributed as cash, there is little oversight in how this money is used and transferred by migrants.

These foreigners have a substantial incentive to send this money overseas, where due to exchange rates and different standards of living, the euro can go far further than it can in Germany. However, these social welfare payments were never designed to be sent overseas, and are meant to provide the necessary support for migrants within Germany.

. . .

AfD parliamentary group spokesperson, René Springer [said] ... “We need a strict principle of benefits in kind for asylum seekers — bread, bed, and soap. There should be nothing more. Only then can we really assume that people who ask for asylum here are actually seeking protection. Asylum is only intended for this purpose and not as an access portal to German social benefits,” he continued.


There's more at the link.

I entirely agree.  The purpose of helping "refugees" (and yes, we all know that most "refugees" are economic migrants and nothing more) is to help them, to cover their basic needs here.  It's not to support their extended families back home.  Why should our taxpayers support those outside our borders who pay no taxes to us in their turn?

I understand some will say that this is inhumane;  that we should be willing to help the poor in other countries as (at minimum) a "gesture of support".  Very well.  If they want to allow such transfers, then we should ensure that we get back at least some of the money we'll otherwise waste on needs beyond our borders.  I propose a 50% tax on all cash transfers to designated nations (those where such abuse is most frequent), and very strict controls on which institutions are allowed to make such transfers - no informal system such as the Islamic Hawala, which is untraceable and can't be monitored.  Anyone caught sending money abroad by unauthorized means should be prosecuted and punished.  That way, we'll at least restrict such transfers to real emergencies, and (hopefully) prevent benefits intended to be spent here from being spent beyond our borders.

As for distributing benefits in kind rather than in cash, I agree again, but that's hard to enforce.  Already, there are widespread problems with EBT and SNAP benefits such as food, laundry soap, etc. being "sold" to local corner shops for cash or exchanged for goods not covered by the EBT system, such as cigarettes or booze.  Refugees receiving food allowances would doubtless try to do the same with what they're given.  I'm not sure that practical, affordable systems of control could be set up.

Perhaps simplest of all, stop providing economic migrants with benefits far beyond the basics that they need to survive!  We don't have to provide them with luxuries such as TV's, cellphones, airline travel and so forth.  If they're genuinely refugees, they'll be grateful for the basics.  If they demand more, they're unlikely to be refugees and they certainly aren't grateful;  so why not send them back over the border, to find another country more willing to meet their demands?

Peter


Monday, March 11, 2024

Haiti's gangs and the Chicago political model

 

The gang violence currently convulsing Haiti is no accident.  It's the result of deliberate efforts by politicians to use the gangs for their own purposes - until the gangs decided they could do the same for themselves, without needing the politicians.


A 1990s embargo was imposed after the military overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The embargo and the international isolation devastated the country’s small middle class, said Michael Deibert, author of “Notes From the Last Testament: The Struggle for Haiti,” and “Haiti Will Not Perish: A Recent History.”

After a U.S.-backed U.N. force pushed out the coup's leaders in 1994, a World Bank-sponsored structural adjustment led to the importation of rice from the U.S. and devastated rural agricultural society, Deibert said.

Boys without work flooded into Port-au-Prince and joined gangs. Politicians started using them as a cheap armed wing. Aristide, a priest-turned-politician, gained notoriety for using gangsters.

In December 2001, police official Guy Philippe attacked the National Palace in an attempted coup and Aristide called on the gangsters to rise from the slums, Deibert said.

“It wasn’t the police defending their government’s Palais Nacional,” remembered Deibert, who was there. “It was thousands of armed civilians.”

“Now, you have these different politicians that have been collaborating with these gangs for years, and ... it blew up in their face,” he continued.

How did weak foreign intervention hurt Haiti?

Many of the gangs retreated in the face of MINUSTAH, a U.N. force established in 2004.

Rene Preval, the only democratically elected president to win and complete two terms in a country notorious for political upheaval, took a hard line on the gangs, giving them the choice to “disarm or be killed,” said Robert Fatton, professor of government and foreign affairs at the University of Virginia.

After his presidency, subsequent leaders were at best easy on the gangs and at worst tied to them, he said.

Fatton said every key actor in Haitian society had their gangs, noting that the current situation isn't unique, but that it has deteriorated at a faster pace.

“For the last the three years, the gangs started to gain autonomy. And now they are a power unto themselves,” he said, likening them to a “mini-Mafia state.”

“The autonomy of the gangs has reached a critical point. It is why they are capable now of imposing certain conditions on the government itself," Fatton said.

"Those who created the gangs created a monster. And now the monster may not be totally in charge, but it has the capacity to block any kind of solution,” he said.


There's more at the link.

Why is this reminiscent - and perhaps prescient - of the situation in Chicago, where youth gangs have been running amok for years?  Here are a few headlines from the past decade:


28 Arrested In Mob Attacks On Mag Mile, Red Line



As Chicago magazine pointed out more than a decade ago:  "In some parts of Chicago, violent street gangs and pols quietly trade money and favors for mutual gain. The thugs flourish, the elected officials thrive—and you lose."


A few months before last February’s citywide elections, Hal Baskin’s phone started ringing. And ringing. Most of the callers were candidates for Chicago City Council, seeking the kind of help Baskin was uniquely qualified to provide.

Baskin isn’t a slick campaign strategist. He’s a former gang leader and, for several decades, a community activist who now operates a neighborhood center that aims to keep kids off the streets ... In all, he says, he helped broker meetings between roughly 30 politicians (ten sitting aldermen and 20 candidates for City Council) and at least six gang representatives.

. . .

At some of the meetings, the politicians arrived with campaign materials and occasionally with aides. The sessions were organized much like corporate-style job fairs. The gang representatives conducted hourlong interviews, one after the other, talking to as many as five candidates in a single evening. Like supplicants, the politicians came into the room alone and sat before the gang representatives, who sat behind a long table. “One candidate said, ‘I feel like I’m in the hot seat,’” recalls Baskin. “And they were.”

The former chieftains, several of them ex-convicts, represented some of the most notorious gangs on the South and West Sides, including the Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples, Black Disciples, Cobras, Black P Stones, and Black Gangsters. Before the election, the gangs agreed to set aside decades-old rivalries and bloody vendettas to operate as a unified political force, which they called Black United Voters of Chicago. “They realized that if they came together, they could get the politicians to come to them,” explains Baskin.

. . .

But in the end, as with most things political in Chicago, it all came down to one question, says Davis, the community activist who helped Baskin with some of the meetings. He recalls that the gang representatives asked, “What can you give me?” The politicians, most eager to please, replied, “What do you want?”


Again, more at the link.

And what's the result of all this?  The gangs flourish, street crime is rampant, and the police are effectively not allowed to do their job through being defunded, restricted and vilified by politicians and "community activists".  Examples:





Admittedly, Chicago's gang problem has not deteriorated to the same extent as Haiti's:  but it hasn't been solved, either.  That's partly because in years past, it was largely confined to a few inner-city suburbs where gangs effectively operated in a "safe haven" - police didn't go there unless they had to.  Now, the gang culture and violence that's permeated those areas is spilling over into the central business district and other areas, and the police have been so hamstrung by budget cuts and official sanctions that they simply can't control it.

Will Chicago become like Haiti?  Hopefully not, because the authorities will crack down before that occurs:  but given the evidence of the past decade or two, and political collusion with criminal gangs as described above, it's certainly not impossible.

Nor is Chicago alone.  Look at youth mobs and gang violence in other large US cities, particularly where "imported" gangs from South America have set up new bases after flooding across our southern border, thanks to the Biden administration's policies.  There are headlines about them on an almost daily basis in New York City and elsewhere.  Note, too, that many of Haiti's gangsters have made the same journey, bringing with them the same attitudes and ruthlessness they displayed there.

Haiti is not yet a predictive model for the USA . . . but it might become one for some of our inner-city ghettoes and adjacent areas, unless our politicians wake up and do something about it.  Trouble is, too many of those politicians are behaving like Haiti's, and viewing gangs as a resource to exploit.  That way lies chaos and anarchy.

Peter


Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Remember the Wagner Group? They've gone "respectable" (sort of)

 

Following its failed rebellion in Russia last year, and the death of its founder in a more-than-suspicious "aircraft accident", it looks like the Russian government has taken over the running of the mercenary Wagner Group and is exploiting it as the "thin edge of the wedge" in the Third World.  The BBC reports:


The multibillion dollar operations [of the Wagner Group in Africa] are now mostly being run as the Russian "Expeditionary Corps", managed by the man accused of being behind the attempt to murder Sergei Skripal using the Novichok nerve agent on the streets of the UK - a charge Russia has denied.

"This is the Russian state coming out of the shadows in its Africa policy," says Jack Watling, land warfare specialist at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) and one of the report's authors.

. . .

The three West African states with close links to Wagner - Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso - have all experienced military takeovers in recent years. They have since announced their withdrawal from the regional bloc Ecowas, and the creation of their own "Alliance of Sahel States".

. . .

"What the Russians have provided is a strike force, with helicopters with advanced capabilities and a lot of firepower," says Dr Watling. "They are using pretty traditional Soviet anti-partisan methods. You see fighters who were executed, as well as civilians targeted for enabling or being associated with fighters."

There have been multiple claims that Wagner forces carried out human rights abuses on the African continent, as well as in Ukraine and Syria, where Prigozhin's organisation previously held a commanding presence.

. . .

In exchange for considerable, if brutal, security assistance, Wagner required something in return.

Mali, like many African nations, is rich in natural resources - from timber and gold to uranium and lithium. Some are simply valuable, while others have strategic importance as well.

According to Dr Watling, Wagner was operating in a well-established tradition: "There is a standard Russian modus operandi, which is that you cover the operational costs with parallel business activity. In Africa, that is primarily through mining concessions."

. . .

Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many in the Western security apparatus say that Russia's mask has slipped.

"What they are looking to do is to exacerbate our crises internationally. They are trying to start fires elsewhere, and expand those that already exist, making a less safe world," Dr Watling.

"Ultimately, it weakens us in the global competition that we are currently facing. So the impact is not immediately felt, but over time, it is a serious threat."


There's more at the link.

There have been many reports, and even more rumors, about what Wagner Group is up to in Africa.  I have a number of contacts across that continent, and I've been hearing interesting things from them.  (Amongst other things, I was told that following the Wagner uprising in Russia, a number of its operatives there and in Africa were recruited by the French Foreign Legion, an organization that's very familiar with African operations and has long employed a significant number of soldiers from the former Soviet Union and its satellites.  It would be logical for the Foreign Legion to be eager to supplement its ranks with more of the same, particularly since many of them are combat veterans.)  Given, too, Wagner's somewhat criminal inclinations in Russia and Ukraine, it's not surprising that many of its operatives would have no qualms about strong-arming African nations and their people into "cooperating" (at the point of a gun, if necessary) with Russian interests.

It's very convenient for a nation-state to have a nominally independent group that it can use, then deny, as a less-than-official strong-arm squad to assist its foreign policy objectives.  Wagner might as well be tailor-made for such purposes.

(One wonders how many former Wagner operatives are now employed by US three-letter agencies?  They would bring an undoubted ruthlessness to the field that US operatives may lack.  There are stories circulating . . . )

Peter