What is disgusting is that when Reagan said “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.”, the US was #1 in freedom around the world, last year the US was #17th! (Or 18th depending on which you follow). A very sad state of affairs. The Founders would be disgusted. (See e.g. Cato https://www.cato.org/blog/new-human-freedom-index-decline-global-freedom or Heritage: https://www.heritage.org/international-economies/commentary/2018-index-economic-freedom. )
Care2.com is sending me emails (spam, unsolicited commercial emails) saying I’ve signed petitions that I didn’t sign. Contacting their customer support is useless, but even more disgusting is that they are fraudulently using other people’s email address to sign petitions.
One wonders how many people who sign their petitions are legitimate and how many a fraudulently done like the one below.
One sample today:
We Just Took Back the House of Representatives! It’s Time for Democrats to Step Up and Finally Impeach Trump.
Let’s all take a collective sigh of relief.
People like you and I have been waiting for this moment for two years. We fought for it, canvassed for it, phone-banked for it, and now it’s finally happened — Democrats have won back the U.S. House of Representatives, changing Congressional politics in a major way.
“What now,” you ask?
Voting for Liberty on Florida’s Constitutional Amendments, 2018:
Amendment #1—Increases the Homestead Property Exemption Vote YES
Amendment #2—Limitations on Property Tax Assessments – Vote YES
Amendment #3—Voter Control of Gambling in Florida Vote YES (take it from the lobbyists)
Amendment #4—Restoration of Voting Rights Vote NO
Amendment #5—Super majority required for tax & fee increases Vote YES
Amendment #6—Rights of Crime Victims; Judges – varies
Amendment #7—1st Responder and Military Survivor Benefits; Public Colleges & Universities – Vote NO
Amendment #9—Prohibits Offshore Oil & Gas Drilling; Restricts Vaping – Vote NO
Amendment #10—State& Local Government & Operation – Vote NO
Amendment #11—Property Rights; Removal of Obsolete Provision; Criminal Statutes – Vote YES
Amendment #12—Lobbying and Abuse of Office by Public Officers – Vote YES
Amendment #13—Dog Racing – Vote NO (should be up to the legislature and individuals in a free country).
(some of the “no”s because they belong in the legislature, not the Constitution.)
In general if you are voting for freedom, you should not be voting Democrat in Florida 2018.
You have a socialist – you work, I’ll eat – running for Governor and it continues on down the Democrat side of the ticket. The socialists, fascists, and communists – any authoritarian – can’t stand freedom and a President who is rolling back taxes, regulations, and government. It might cut off some of their “free” stuff. Here is a clue, nothing is free, you are either paying for it for yourself or using force to make someone else pay for it for you. The Democrat party fought a civil war to defend that in the old South and are still peddling the same abuse of one group for the benefit of another today.
The collectivist authoritarians – fascist, socialist, communist, it doesn’t matter the label – of the left have one goal and it is power over people and their lives. In short, enslaving people to fund their choices and do their bidding at the point of a gun. Their goal is Venezuela, Cuba, Mao’s China, the USSR, Eastern Europe of the 1950s through 1980s etc: anti-liberty prisons where the masses of people are forced to fund a small elite.
Don’t be one of the Left’s useful idiots. Vote freedom.
“Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.” Abraham Lincoln
Snopes, FactCheck and other fact checking type sites love to use weasel works. For example, in the “global warming” or “climate change” debate both attempt to deal with the question as to whether NOAA has manipulated the raw data. Clearly the answer is yes. Yet both sites come out with the answer as now even though they admit that it was “standardized” or “manipulated” in the text.
“no undue manipulation of temperature data” – FactCheck.org
“NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data” while stating “procedures for the standardization of which datasets to use” – Snopes
None of this is the language of science. Once you have massaged the data, it is no longer data, but a hypothetical. Sure, models may be good, but they may not be – garbage in, garbage out. And a model is no longer data, it is a model projection of data. Depending on your manipulation, you can achieve many different results.
“Karl et al might reasonably be criticized for having been less than rigorous in their data documentation, their findings have been independently verified, “
First of all, if it is impossible to independently verify a revision in data processing. Sure, if you put the same input into the same process, you should get the same output. But the process here is key. If the assumptions used to “standardize” the data are biased or faulty, it doesn’t matter if it is repeatable.
“they also released a revised land record based on data” – “the old NOAA record spliced together warmer ship data with colder buoy data without accounting for the offset between the two; and the new NOAA record puts more weight on higher-quality buoy records and less weight on ship records (versus the old NOAA record which treated ships and buoys equally). ” Carbonbrief.org.
A “revised” data set based on changes in weighting of the data from equal to weighting one that is unequal is purely subjective. It is no longer data, it is, again, hypothesis.
So, when reading the fact checking from many of these sites, watch out for the weasel words to twist a statement into something it isn’t.
Look at the “Did Hillary Clinton Steal $200,000 in White House Furnishings?” article on snopes which they label as “mostly false.” Yet Snopes states at the end of the article:
All told, the Clintons paid back or returned approximately $136,000 worth of furniture, artwork, china and other household items they had kept upon leaving office, with $86,000 of that total consisting of personal gifts they would presumably have been allowed to retain but decided to pay for to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
About $50,000 of the total comprised items they had removed but were later determined to belong to the government. To say the latter were “stolen” is to say more than we know — the removal of the questioned items could have been based a clerical mistake — but in any case an accurate accounting of those items’ worth puts it at only a quarter of what has been alleged: $50,000, not $200,000.
Just be sure to read the words because they could’ve ask the question “Did Hillary Clinton Steal $200,000,000 in White House Furnishings?” And of course as a percentage $50,000/$200,000,000 is de minimis.
How the question is phrased, and how the answer is presented is key.
Did NOAA manipulate temperature data? Unequivocally yes as everyone admits when you read what is written.
Snopes and others tried the same thing with the “Al Gore invented the Internet” claim. By changing the claim from what Gore said to something else, they claimed it was false.
Was former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while at Ozy.com on July 22, 2018 wearing a Life Alert type device? It is hard to tell from the photos we’ve seen. It clearly does not match the “Life Alert” brand exactly, but it doesn’t match her jewelry either. It seems a lot more functional.
What do you think it is?
(Link: https://pictures.ozy.com/pictures/1600×900/8/9/7/127897_zenya_clinton_00005copy_0.jpg )
Rule of Law vs Rule of Whim?
Harkening back to previous comments about the difference between the Rule of Law and the Rule of a Whim ( http://rights.com/2000/11/20/the-rule-of-law-or-the-rule-of-whim/ ) Federal district judge James Robart of Seattle’s recent ruling embodies the difference between the rule of law and the rule of whim.
Federal immigration law, Section 1182(f), could not be clearer:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
When the judiciary ignores the law, the meaning of the “law” is lost. We are then no longer a country of laws, not men, we are a country of men’s whims, not law.
Frankly, DNC members don’t really represent constituencies anyway. I should know. I served on the DNC first as Executive Director and then as an elected member for 10 years.)
Hillary Clinton’s former chief on staff Tamera Luzzatto forward advice from Mark Siegel
“And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.” – sent to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta by former Clinton administration official Bill Ivey on March 13, 2016.